Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

KING'S COLLEGE LONDON BILL [Lords]

Order for Third Reading read

To be read the Third time on Tuesday 1 July

SELECTION

Ordered,
That Mr. Andrew MacKay be discharged from the Committee of Selection and Mr. Peter Ainsworth be added to the Committee.—[Ms Bridget Prentice.]

Oral Answers to Questions — HEALTH

Breast Cancer

Ms Atherton: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the average waiting time for a woman with suspected breast cancer between referral by her general practitioner and receiving a diagnosis. [3466]

The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Frank Dobson): My hon. Friend will no doubt be as surprised and dismayed as I was to discover that the Department of Health cannot provide a figure for the national average time women suspected of breast cancer have to wait for diagnosis after being referred by their general practitioner. I am determined to set up an information system that can supply such important facts.
As my hon. Friend knows, we are committed to reducing the time women with suspected breast cancer have to wait for diagnosis. That is why we have made £10 million available to promote the establishment of one-stop clinics, to ensure that tests can be carried out and results given more quickly and to allow all women to benefit from quicker access to treatment provided by specialist teams.

Ms Atherton: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. Will he take the opportunity to reassure women that the Government are determined to ensure that breast cancer screening is safe and effective? Will he further assure the House that the Government will leave no stone unturned in their efforts to discover exactly what took place in Devon and to ensure that every action is taken to remedy the position?

Mr. Dobson: As my hon. Friend knows, on 9 June I asked the chief medical officer to set in train a review

of what had happened in east Devon and to report to me on that and on any general implications for the breast cancer screening service nationally. The review panel has visited Exeter. It has further investigations to conduct and I expect it to report in July; when I receive that report, I shall publish it.

Sir Peter Emery: The right hon. Gentleman has been very honest with the House, but I want to keep him up to speed. Some people are still uncertain about their screening results; therefore, there is a real need to press on with the review. I am sorry to hear that the report is unlikely to be produced until the middle of July. I had hoped that it would have been completed by the end of June. It is essential that the information is made available, because the worry that has been caused can be understood only by someone who has experienced it. May I press that issue as hard as possible on the right hon. Gentleman?

Mr. Dobson: I understand the points that the right hon. Gentleman makes. Let me emphasise that any women in Devon who are concerned about their health should use the helpline or get in touch with their GPs or the hospital to arrange to have a further check. The establishment and conduct of the review should do nothing to inhibit anyone who may need to go back for a further check.

Mr. Tyler: The Secretary of State is aware of my constituency interest in the failure of the breast screening service in Devon and Cornwall. Will he confirm that the current inquiries are being extended into Cornwall, where one of the consultants concerned provided that service and where there is continuing anxiety among people served by the Treliske hospital?

Mr. Dobson: As I understand the position, one of the consultants involved in the failures in Exeter was also involved in failures at Treliske hospital in Cornwall. One of the review's purposes will be to discover how people can fail in one place and then move on to another.

Mr. Gunnell: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on switching resources so early to this issue from the extra bureaucracy with which the previous Government left the health service. Will he consider the delays that frequently occur between women receiving a diagnosis, having an operation and then having radiotherapy treatment? Some people in Leeds certainly experienced a delay in obtaining the treatment they needed. Will my right hon. Friend find out what is going on, so that when he is in a position to move more money from bureaucracy, he knows where to spend it?

Mr. Dobson: The proposals for the concentration of cancer diagnosis and treatment services—the Calman-Hine proposals—pare intended to improve the performance of the national health service generally in cancer detection and treatment. Those proposals should be helping the situation in Leeds. If they are not, I will take the matter up with the health authorities and trusts in Leeds. Whatever the general arrangements, local management need to do their job in ensuring that the resources available are deployed properly and that the clinicians do their job properly. If those requirements are not met, we will not get the service that women need and deserve, whatever system is in place.

Infant Health

Mr. Brazier: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how the indicators of the health of babies and very young children have changed since 1979. [3467]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Paul Boateng): Infant mortality rates are often used as an indicator of children's overall health status. They have been falling since the inception of the NHS under a Labour Government.

Mr. Brazier: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that answer, but he did not answer the question. Had he done so, he would have had to reveal that almost all the indicators of health among children and babies improved during the Conservative Government's time in office, showing that the NHS was safe in our hands. Will he join me in congratulating the Kent and Canterbury paediatric and maternity units on their excellent work and their imaginative pooling of resources with neighbouring trusts to provide the critical mass necessary for the training of junior doctors?

Mr. Boateng: I am delighted to congratulate the Kent and Canterbury paediatric unit. Its good work is in no way due to the efforts of the previous Government, because they ran the national health service down. I warn the hon. Gentleman against complacency, not least because the incidence of asthma among young children has more than trebled since 1979. The public health measures taken by the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Ms Jowell), will attempt to deal with that problem.

Mr. Sheerman: Will my hon. Friend consider a special group of babies and young children—those who are born to the poorest families, often in urban centres, with parents who are unemployed and on benefit—because worrying research reports suggest that the health of that group is deteriorating, while average levels of health are rising?

Mr. Boateng: I share my hon. Friend's concern, not least because the infant mortality rate is one and a half times higher for poorer families than for wealthy families. This Labour Government will address that cause for concern.

Mr. Maples: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that in no circumstances will the parents of young children who are ill have to contribute financially to the costs of their medical treatment?

Mr. Boateng: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his position of leadership in opposition. He asks an important question. He knows that we are determined to ensure that the NHS gives value for money and that the resources at its disposal are used for the benefit of all patients. That will be the issue that is addressed by this Government.

Madam Speaker: Dr. Phyllis Starkey.

Dr. Starkey: Question 19, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: I am calling the hon. Lady to ask a supplementary on Question 2. If she does not wish to do so, we shall go on to the next question.

EU Health Council

Mr. Jim Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about the outcome of the June EU Health Council meeting. [3469]

The Minister of State, Department of Health (Ms Tessa Jowell): I represented the Government at the meeting. The Council adopted a decision on a Community action programme on health monitoring and a common position on a proposed Community network for the surveillance of communicable diseases. It also discussed a communication from the Commission on combating tobacco consumption, and a presidency paper on blood safety and self-sufficiency in the Community.

Mr. Cunningham: Did my hon. Friend also discuss at the Council the impact of poor housing and environment, and of poverty in general, on public health?

Ms Jowell: I thank my hon. Friend for his question. As that was my first Health Council meeting, I briefed other European Health Ministers on my appointment as the United Kingdom Government's first Minister for public health, and made clear our Government's commitment to tackle the inequalities that compromise the health of children and adults in this country.

NHS Trusts (Debt)

Mr. Skinner: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospital trusts have notified his Department that they will be in debt in the current year; and if he will make a statement. [3471]

Mr. Dobson: I am sure that my hon. Friend will be interested to know that, as part of the unfortunate legacy that we inherited from the outgoing Tory Government, 128 NHS trusts out of a total of 429 entered the current financial year in deficit, as did 59 of the 100 health authorities. I have asked the trusts to submit to me by July their revised financial plans for the current year; then I shall be able to find out what debt they expect to be in at the end of the year.

Mr. Skinner: Does my right hon. Friend, like the rest of us on the Government side of the House, acknowledge that those figures are appalling, as is the fact that when Labour assumed office there were 1,164,000 people on the waiting list? The Tory Government's grand Frankenstein experiment of meddling with the national health service, and trying to privatise it without telling the British people what they were doing, has resulted in misery for millions of people.
I wish my right hon. Friend well in his shuffling of the pack at the national health service, moving money from one area to another, but does he agree—I shall help him here, so I hope that he does—that next Wednesday, when the Budget is announced, it will be essential for his Department to receive more money? Does he agree that we need to raise additional revenue, so that after five years the national health service will be in as grand a condition as it was when we kicked it off in 1945?

Mr. Dobson: I should explain to my hon. Friend that even the figures that I announced in my main answer were


achieved only because health authorities and trusts failed to pay their creditors as quickly as they should have done—"doing a Hezza", I think it is called—and also transferred funds from capital to revenue. That demonstrates what a desperate situation they were in.
For the time being, all I can say about the funding of the health service is that far too much money is going into the bureaucracy, and that we have arranged for £100 million of that to be transferred to patient care this year. We also revealed, in the recent report, that between £80 million and £100 million has been wasted by prescription fraud, about which the previous Government did nothing.
We must ensure that every penny available to the national health service is spent as it ought to be, not lost through fraud or the bureaucratic nonsense of the internal market that the previous Government introduced—

Mr. Forth: Waffle.

Mr. Dobson: There certainly is a vast amount of waffle in the national health service at the moment, and it is there because of the internal market, which is draining funds out of patient care.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Although I accept that the Secretary of State is trying to find relatively small beer in the NHS Budget, may I take him back to the central question, which not only the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) but pretty much everyone in the country is asking? Given that Labour Ministers clearly knew the score before the election as to how much the NHS was in debt, and given that all the advice he receives is that the NHS needs more money, does the Secretary of State sign up to the Cabinet policy that there will be no additional money for the NHS this year and next? Will the Budget remain for two years at the limit inherited from the Tories, or is he arguing around the Cabinet table for something different?

Mr. Dobson: For a start, it is worth reminding everybody that the NHS spends £36 billion a year—a lot of money—and some of that money could be better deployed in improving services. We are setting about that, and we are keeping all our election promises. We promised that we would have a comprehensive spending review, that we would shift funds from bureaucracy into patient care and that we would target that money initially on breast cancer treatment. We are carrying out those promises, and we will continue to meet our obligations and keep all the promises that we made.

Mrs. Brinton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that today the Peterborough Hospitals NHS trust has announced that, by March 1998, it will face a £2 million overspend and that, to avert that overspend, it will have to close a theatre and drastically reduce beds? In view of that, will he assure me that, when considering hospitals for flagshipping for the private finance initiative, Peterborough will have top priority?

Mr. Dobson: My hon. Friend draws attention to yet another Tory failure. The Tories talked and talked about getting private finance for the building of hospitals, and spent £30 million on consultants' fees, but they never got a single brick laid in any hospital. The Minister of State,

my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn), is working on that matter. Before long, work will start on the PFI hospitals that the previous Government failed to deliver.

Mr. Jack: So far, all we have heard from the Secretary of State is waffle; we have had no straight answer to questions on the resourcing of the health service. His "savings" amount to the equivalent of one additional day's resources. On my first appearance at the Dispatch Box for Health questions, may I try to be helpful to the Secretary of State by offering him an opportunity to save some £740 million? He may be aware of the excellent work done at the Devonshire Road hospital in Blackpool on the treatment of osteoporosis. If that work were done widely in the NHS, some £740 million could be saved and 40 premature deaths a day could be prevented. On World Osteoporosis Day, may I ask him to include in his fundamental review of the health service a thorough re-examination of the way in which osteoporosis is treated in the NHS?

Mr. Dobson: It beggars belief that a former Treasury Minister can get up and belabour us for inefficiency, as he sees it, in the NHS for which we have been responsible for eight weeks after 18 years of Tory responsibility.

Mr. Jack: What about osteoporosis?

Mr. Dobson: The right hon. Gentleman has mastered the word "osteoporosis" and we all admire his efforts.
There are many areas within the NHS where we can improve the way in which money is spent, and that is one reason why we are having a fundamental comprehensive review. We will include that in the review. But I must ask the right hon. Gentleman—why did his lot not review that years ago?

EU Health Council

Dr. Godman: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about the outcome of the recent meeting of the European Union Health Council in respect of matters relating to mental health. [3472]

Mr. Boateng: Mental health was not discussed at the European Union Health Council. Of course, the issue is a concern to member states and to this Government. We want to ensure that mental health problems are addressed through good-quality, effective services, which are sensitive to individual service users' needs, allowing them to achieve their full potential.

Dr. Godman: Is any attempt being made by the Council of Ministers to establish good standards of practice in the treatment of those individuals with psychiatric illnesses? In particular, are the guidelines published by the Royal College of Psychiatrists for the use of electro-convulsive therapy for certain psychiatric illnesses followed by other medical authorities elsewhere in the European Union?

Mr. Boateng: We will certainly commend the guidelines produced by the royal college to the European Union Health Council. They are very helpful. When


I meet the college in a few weeks' time, I shall also be discussing how the Department can ensure that the information that we collect on the number of ECT treatments can be brought together better. As my hon. Friend knows, in 1991 the Department ceased to collect those figures centrally. We want to re-examine that decision and we shall do so with the assistance of the royal college.

Health Authorities Act 1995

Mr. Whittingdale: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment has been made of the likely savings to be made for patient care as a result of the Health Authorities Act 1995. [3473]

Mr. Forth: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the projected savings to the national health service from the implementation of the Health Authorities Act 1995. [3486]

Mr. Milburn: It is estimated that annual savings of around £150 million were made as a result of the 1995 Act, but it took three years to get there. We have already announced a £100 million reduction in management costs to be achieved in the current year alone and we are looking carefully at the scope for further savings in 1998–99 and beyond.

Mr. Whittingdale: Given that answer, can the hon. Gentleman say whether he still supports the establishment of a regional tier of administration for the national health service, as was called for in his party's policy document "Renewing the NHS"?

Mr. Milburn: We have no plans to reinstate regional health authorities.

Mr. Forth: That sounds a bit bizarre to me. Was the Minister's party not the party which opposed the 1995 Act and all the savings that he has just told the House flowed from it? Has he not now admitted that he has done a U-turn on one of the undertakings in his party's policy document? How can we place any credibility on the Government's undertakings about savings in the NHS if, on the one hand, they opposed the measures that gave real savings—our measures—and, on the other, the hon. Gentleman is going back on his policy?

Mr. Milburn: I know that the right hon. Gentleman wants to dwell on the past. That is because he and the Conservative party represent the past—they are living in the past. As he well knows, the Conservative party is not the enemy but the friend of red tape. It increased bureaucracy in the NHS and gave us more invoices, more paper, more red tape, more managers, more administrators and more accountants—but it gave us fewer nurses.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: As well as the savings from cutting red tape, which can be diverted into patient care, does my hon. Friend agree that another potentially fruitful source of resources could be made available to the health service by removing the problem of bed blocking, whereby patients cannot be moved from health authority hospitals, where they cost more than £1,000 a week, to old people's homes or nursing homes, where they would

be looked after for £300 or £400 a week or less, because local social services departments do not have the money to pay for the patients' stay in an old people's home? Does he agree that if local authority social service departments—with their present bankrupt budgets—and health authorities could co-ordinate their budgets more tightly, savings of about £700 a week per patient could be achieved by removing that bed blocking problem?

Mr. Milburn: My hon. Friend raises an important issue. As he will be aware, the interface between personal social services and the health service is crucial in ensuring that very vulnerable people in the community are cared for—particularly the elderly, but also people with disabilities and mental health problems. Sometimes, the gaps in provision mean that such people are not looked after in the most appropriate way.
My hon. Friend should consider two points: first, in planning for this winter, we will expect health authorities and local authorities to work closely together, precisely to achieve the co-operation that he advocates. Secondly, in the longer term, we will consider how best to pool resources to ensure that the gaps between social care and health care are closed.

Mr. Hogg: Does the Minister accept that any savings that he might make through the Health Authorities Act 1995 would be dwarfed by the additional costs attributable to the minimum wage and to any restrictions that might be placed on competitive tendering?

Mr. Milburn: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is the master of the red herring—although, in view of his former responsibilities, I apologise for the unintended pun. The Government are committed to ensuring that, in the future, health service resources go where they are most needed: not into back-line bureaucracy but into front-line patient services, where they should have gone in the first place.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: On the question of savings, my hon. Friend the Minister will have heard my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State say that he expected to receive financial plans from health authorities, and trusts in particular, by a date in July. May we therefore assume that the documents submitted by trusts will include their proposals for reducing deficits by 1 April 1998?

Mr. Milburn: It is important that all trusts and health authorities should set out clearly how they intend to cope with the financial deficits that many of them have, often through no fault of their own. We will scrutinise extremely carefully the plans from both health authorities and trusts, to ensure that they maximise value for money, and also lead to improvements in patient care.

Dr. Harris: Given the Minister's surprising answer to the original question on health authorities, how will the Government bring back the necessary strategic planning, democratic accountability and openness in local services without a regional tier of health authorities?

Mr. Milburn: As the hon. Gentleman knows fine well from his experience in the national health service, there is a regional tier. We intend to work through the regional offices to ensure, for example, that capital developments


in the NHS are much more strategically planned. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said a few minutes ago, we will no longer countenance a situation in which the private finance initiative is driven by the needs of the market; instead, we would expect regional offices to identify those capital schemes that best meet strategic health needs in their areas. We are, as it were, reinstating strategic planning at a regional level.

National Screening Programmes

Liz Blackman: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals he has for improving the reliability of national screening programmes. [3475]

Laura Moffatt: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about the breast cancer screening programme. [3482]

Mr. Dobson: Breast and cervical cancer screening remain the best method of detecting breast and cervical cancers early so that women can get treatment as quickly as possible. It is vital therefore that women can be confident about the quality of that screening. That is why everyone is so disturbed by the record of failure in breast cancer screening in East Devon NHS trust and in cervical cancer screening in Kent and Canterbury NHS trust.
Arrangements have already been set in train for the chief medical officer to conduct an inquiry into what has been happening in east Devon. At my request, Sir William Wells, the chair of South Thames regional office, has set up an independent inquiry into the lamentable failure of the cervical cancer screening services in Kent and Canterbury, and the equally lamentable failure of the management to deal with the situation. He has accepted the resignation of the chair and chief executive.

Liz Blackman: 1 thank my right hon. Friend for his answer, which will give great reassurance to many women. A significant number of women in the target groups do not take up invitations to go for screening. The figure varies between 16 and 34 per cent. in different health authorities. Those women do not come forward for a variety of reasons: they lead busy lives, work anti-social hours or do not regard themselves as a high priority. Does he have proposals to encourage such women to come forward to take advantage of the screening programme?

Mr. Dobson: As I think my hon. Friend knows, the target take-up rate for breast cancer screening nationally is 70 per cent. of women in target age groups. That is exceeded in every region except North Thames, but that figure does not apply to quite a lot of women in badly deprived areas or to substantial numbers of women among various ethnic groups. I have asked that special measures be taken both in North Thames and in other areas to lift the take-up rate in such groups. I have also asked officials to consider whether the 70 per cent. target is reasonable.

Laura Moffatt: In Crawley, ethnic groups form about 10 per cent. of the population. For all sorts of reasons, women in those groups do not come forward. They may have problems understanding what the test is about and be worried about the people who will deal with them if they do come forward. I am thrilled that my right hon. Friend is keen to examine the issue of getting people to

breast screening programmes. Is there any way that we could talk to the voluntary organisations that deal with the different ethnic groups about the language that is used and the way in which screening is done? The plans that he mentioned were great, but we need to consider how we get people to come forward.

Mr. Dobson: I support the propositions that my hon. Friend puts forward, both from her political knowledge and from her professional knowledge as a nurse. Speaking as one privileged to represent the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson hospital, I can say she might have added that, for some ethnic minority women, a guarantee that they would be dealt with by women would undoubtedly help to raise the take-up rate.

Mr. Baldry: The right hon. Gentleman has talked about shifting resources from elsewhere in the NHS to breast cancer. There has been much rhetoric about red tape, bureaucracy and reviews. Can he make clear what reviews are taking place in the NHS? What are their timetables? When will work be completed? Will he give an undertaking that their results will be transparent, so that we shall be able to compare what the Government say about NHS bureaucracy with what is there now to manage a system that spends £42 billion a year?

Mr. Dobson: For a start, £10 million has been shifted into breast cancer treatment. That is half the sum saved by not proceeding with the eighth wave of fundholding: £20 million of the NHS budget had been earmarked for the paperwork of the additional wave. It has been shifted not from anything useful but into something useful. I would have hoped that everyone would welcome that. I have made it clear that the chief medical officer's review of screening provision in the south-west, and the review being carried out by Sir William Wells of cervical cancer screening services in Kent and Canterbury, will be reported to me and published.

Rev. Martin Smyth: When we think of a 70 per cent. target for take-up, is the other 30 per cent. made up mainly of people in deprived or rural areas? Is there an opportunity to use mobile screening units, as promoted by Action Cancer in my constituency, which go out to where people are so that they do not have to wait to go to specialist centres?

Mr. Dobson: Generally speaking, women who are better off and better informed get more screening than women who are worse off and worse informed. Therefore, we have to do everything that we can to target any effort to improve the take-up rate on the worst off and worst informed. Techniques such as the one that the hon. Gentleman has just mentioned and those mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt) are all being applied in various parts of the country. I want to see them stepped up because I am not satisfied with the present level of take-up.

Primary Health Care

Ms Perham: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about his plans for improving primary health care. [3476]

Madam Speaker: I have called Question 11.

Hon. Members: Come on!

Mr. Dobson: I thought that I could have a bit of a rest, Madam Speaker. Primary care services are the first contact that most patients have with the national health service. Up and down the country, there are innumerable examples of very high quality services being provided by dedicated primary care professionals. The Government are determined to build on the achievements of those professionals, encouraging excellence and innovation and helping all practices to attain the standards of the best.
We have begun to release primary care from the bureaucratic excesses of the internal market and we are working to ensure that non-fundholding practices and their patients are no longer at a disadvantage.

Ms Perham: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the waste of money on bureaucracy and the state of the health service were the issues that most concerned people in I1ford, North during the election campaign? My right hon. Friend touched on prescription fraud in his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). I understand that it costs about £100 million a year, which means that each health authority could spend an extra £1 million on 145 heart by-pass operations or even 222 hip replacements. That scale of deception was allowed to go on by the Conservative party. How does my right hon. Friend intend to tackle the scandal?

Mr. Dobson: The first point to make is that the vast majority of patients, doctors and pharmacists are decent and honest and have had nothing to do with the scandalous level of prescription fraud. However, there are a limited number of villains among all three categories and we are determined that they will be stopped. One of the problems—this is another matter for our general review of the NHS—is that the system as operated at present is scandalously open to fraud. We have to make it less open to fraud, while not imposing additional bureaucratic burdens or making life difficult for patients who have to deal with their doctor and pharmacist.

Mr. Maples: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, one of the things that are useful in planning the future of primary health care is to know the future of funding levels. In the past 18 years, spending in the NHS has risen in real terms by an average of 3.1 per cent. a year. Can the right hon. Gentleman commit himself to matching that performance over the lifetime of this Parliament?

Mr. Dobson: We are committed in our manifesto to a real increase—

Mr. Maples: Three per cent.

Mr. Dobson: The hon. Gentleman apparently wants to give the answers as well as ask the questions. That would be more understandable if he had shifted straight from one side of the House to the other, but he has had a five-year interval before doing so. I repeat that, in our election manifesto, we said that there would be an increase in real terms every year under the Labour Government.

Waiting Times

Mr. St. Aubyn: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS in-patients were waiting over one year for treatment (a) in March 1979 and (b) in the latest month for which figures are available. [3477]

Ms Jowell: On 31 March 1979, there were 185,195 patients waiting more than 12 months for treatment at national health service hospitals—an increase of 24 per cent. over the previous year. The provisional figure for 31 March 1997, the latest available, is 31,318, which represents a 580 per cent. increase in those numbers over the past year. The highest-ever recorded March figure for patients waiting more than one year was the 223,311 who were waiting in March 1989. We now have the highest-ever number of patients waiting—more than 1.1 million.

Mr. St. Aubyn: In view of the reply that the numbers waiting more than one year fell during the period of the previous Government from 185,000 to just 31,000, do the Minister and her colleagues continue to denigrate the previous Government's record on health because they think that waiting lists do not matter; or, if they think that they do matter, what commitment is the Minister prepared to make today to exceed the previous Government's outstanding record of cutting waiting lists to such an extent?

Ms Jowell: We would not set our sights so low as to try to exceed the record of the previous Government. There are 1.1 million patients waiting for treatment—the highest-ever recorded figure. That was the last Government's legacy to the people using the national health service. It is a shameful legacy. We have made promises to patients and we shall keep the promises we made.

Mr. Corbett: Is not the main reason for those appalling figures the indifference to the number of acute surgical and medical beds available to provide such treatment in our hospitals? Will my hon. Friend give an instruction to Mr. Bryan Stoten, who chairs the Birmingham health authority, that, when considering the reorganisation of hospitals in Birmingham, it is bed numbers in those categories that matter, and not his attempt to fulfil his ambition of getting rid of all but one or two of the city's hospitals?

Ms Jowell: My hon. Friend makes an important point in underlining the increase in the number of emergency admissions, which has been a steady trend in recent years for a number of different reasons. The increase in emergency admissions certainly has an impact on the rate at which elective surgery is performed. As for the situation in Birmingham, I am sure that my hon. Friend, who is a Birmingham Member of Parliament, and my hon. Friend the Minister of State will discuss with other Birmingham Members of Parliament the need to maintain a proper balance in patient capacity in line with the development of community and primary care.

Mrs. Ann Winterton: Does the hon. Lady agree that it is not only the numbers of people on waiting lists that are important, but the length of time that those people are


on the waiting lists? Does she also agree that cases have to be prioritised? How does she believe that she can improve on the figures that she has inherited if further increased resources, year on year, are not made available?

Ms Jowell: Patients on waiting lists want to be sure of the rate at which they will be treated and that they will be admitted to hospital and treated according to the severity of their condition. In recent years, there has been a collapse of public confidence that patients will be treated on the basis of clinical need and the severity of their illness. Our commitment on breast cancer and eliminating waits for breast cancer surgery is an important step in reassuring women, thousands of whom waited unacceptable lengths of time as a result of previous Government policy.

Private Finance Initiative

Mr. Singh: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money has been spent by the NHS on consultancy fees relating to proposed PFI schemes. [3478]

Mr. Milburn: Information is now collected centrally on total expenditure on fees for external consultants involved in major PFI schemes. The total amount which has been spent on leading schemes by NHS trusts in legal fees and advice is £30 million. The total amount spent on all major PFI schemes, including those at an earlier stage, is £37 million.

Mr. Singh: I thank the Minister for his reply and ask him whether he is as shocked as I am at that utter waste of public money by the previous Government. Can he confirm that, within weeks of taking office, the present Government have honoured their manifesto pledge to break the logjam in the PFI in the NHS, and does that not prove that, unlike the Conservatives, we keep our promises on health?

Mr. Milburn: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That £30 million could have bought an extra 7,500 hip replacement operations; so the £30 million legal fees bill that NHS trusts have faced has not only been a waste of taxpayer's resources but robbed patients of the money that they need for investment in front-line care. I can promise my hon. Friend that not only will we make the PFI work, but we shall cut through the PFI red tape bill to ensure that public money is spent on front-line patient services rather than on exorbitant advisers' fees.

Mr. Keith Simpson: If the Minister is anxious to save money in national health service, may I take it that he continues to support compulsory competitive tendering in the NHS?

Mr. Milburn: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, we are conducting a comprehensive spending review and those issues will be considered in the context of the review. I should make it abundantly clear that the parameters of the review will be our manifesto commitments to ensure that the NHS is there for people when they need it, and that it is based on need, not ability to pay.

Ms Drown: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking (a) to speed up decisions on private

finance initiative schemes and (b) to ensure public-private partnerships in NHS capital schemes properly meet the needs of patients and staff. [3480]

Mr. Milburn: The NHS (Private Finance) Bill 1997 will confirm NHS trusts' powers to enter into PFI contracts. That will provide the private sector with the reassurance that it needs to enter into PFI contracts and enable the two major acute hospital PFI schemes, at Norfolk and Norwich and at Dartford and Gravesham, to proceed to financial close.
I announced on 10 June an urgent exercise to prioritise all the other major acute hospital capital schemes currently testing for PFI. An announcement on which schemes have been selected to proceed will be made shortly. In future, all acute schemes will be prioritised and the PFI process will be streamlined.

Ms Drown: Does the Minister recognise the urgency of upgrading Swindon's Princess Margaret hospital, which has £42 million of backlog maintenance and is the No. 1 priority of the South and West region of our health service?

Mr. Milburn: I am of course aware of the urgent need that my hon. Friend's constituents feel about the PFI project in Swindon and of the representations that she and my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Mr. Wills) have made to me in that regard. I can promise that the criteria that we use will ensure that NHS need and the ability to deliver quickly will be the key criteria and that, as a consequence of prioritising and taking tough action now, we shall ensure that, in future, NHS hospitals are built by means of the PFI process.

Mr. Pickles: Before the Minister started his various reviews, there was a significant review of health needs in southern Essex and it was the unanimous view that an accident and emergency unit was necessary in Harold Wood hospital. That has gone through the PFI process and a preferred bidder is ready. Can we go ahead—or is further money to be expended on accountants and so on? Can my constituents look forward to the building of an emergency and accident unit in Harold Wood?

Mr. Milburn: I think that the hon. Gentleman is aware that the London review that the Secretary of State announced on Friday will specifically consider the relationship between Harold Wood and Oldchurch hospitals. If there are proposals for PFI, we shall consider them in the light of reporting from the London review panel.

Mr. Radice: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the steps that he is taking to speed up the PFI process. Will the Department carefully consider the case for a new general hospital at Dryburn being included in the first tranche?

Mr. Milburn: I am aware of the strong feelings in the north Durham area about the need for a new hospital there. As my hon. Friend is aware, it is the Secretary of State who will decide on schemes in the north and in the Yorkshire area. I reiterate to my hon. Friend that the intention behind the PFI prioritisation exercise is to achieve what the previous Government signally failed to achieve by means of the PFI: getting hospitals built.

Dr. Brand: I welcome the fact that the Minister will allow PFI projects to go forward only when they meet the


needs of patients and staff, but how confident is he that he knows what the needs of the health service will be over the whole period when a PFI arrangement may be in place, especially where services are involved?

Mr. Milburn: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the assessment that we are undertaking—initially through the regional offices and then by Ministers—will include a number of criteria, of which NHS need is the most important. Of course, we shall consider carefully whether the schemes presented to us reflect high NHS need; equally, we shall consider whether they represent good value for money. Unless schemes can demonstrate that they improve risk transfer and that they represent good value for money, we shall not give them the go-ahead.

Paediatric Intensive Care

Mr. Hoyle: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will assess the need for paediatric intensive care provision in Chorley and South Ribble health district. [3481]

Mr. Boateng: My right hon. Friend has no plans to assess the paediatric intensive care provision for Chorley and South Ribble, which is currently provided by Manchester Children's Hospital NHS trust and the Royal Liverpool Children's NHS trust, with appropriate retrieval services. My hon. Friend will be glad to learn that there are on-going discussions between Chorley and South Ribble NHS trust and Preston Acute Hospitals NHS trust on the provision of paediatric services for his constituency.

Mr. Hoyle: I welcome that. I would, however, point out that expectant mothers and youngsters involved in accidents have to travel up to 20 miles to reach those hospitals. Chorley and South Ribble is an area with a large population, so will the Minister look into providing a new maternity unit with the full back-up of paediatric services?

Mr. Boateng: The provision of locally accessible services is obviously important. It will be considered by both the NHS trusts concerned, and anything that the Department can do to assist that consideration we certainly shall do.

Private Partnerships

Mr. Heppell: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment his Department has made of the proportion of retired people who would be able to afford to take out private partnerships for long-term care. [3484]

Mr. Boateng: No useful assessment can be made, given the nature of the previous Government's partnership scheme and the multiplicity of factors that would govern its take-up.

Mr. Heppell: Does it not seem clear that private insurance can be of benefit only to a few, not to the majority of elderly people? Will the Government therefore introduce a charter for long-term care specifying what

health authorities and social services departments will provide for older people in need of long-term care?

Mr. Boateng: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend—as did the overwhelming majority of people who responded to the former Government's consultation process on their ill-fated partnership scheme. It is our intention to ensure that there is a charter for long-term care so that all in receipt of such care have equal and fair access to higher-quality services. What matters is not whether the care is given in the private or public sector but whether the quality of the services, and the value for money that the public are entitled to expect of them, can be provided.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Did I hear the Minister say that he wants long-term care to be effectively transferred back to the NHS? Will he commit the Government to doing that, or to ensuring that people's homes are still maintained even if they have stopped living in them? Is that yet another spending commitment by the Government?

Mr. Boateng: The hon. Gentleman did not hear me correctly, but I suspect that he was not listening very hard. Had he been listening, he would have heard of our commitment to long-term care and our determination to ensure that the vulnerable people who need it get the best value for money. That is this Government's response to the crisis to which the previous Government helped to contribute.

Breast Cancer

Dr. Starkey: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to improve breast cancer services for women. [3485]

Ms Jowell: The Government are committed to improving the provision and availability of high-quality cancer services and will direct savings achieved from cuts in the cost of NHS bureaucracy into patient care. As a first step, £10 million has been made available for breast cancer services to speed up access to diagnosis, reduce waiting times for treatment and support networks of specialist breast teams.

Dr. Starkey: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer, which will reassure many women throughout the country. It is important that, once women have been diagnosed, they get the appropriate treatment. Will my hon. Friend outline the steps that are being taken to ensure that research is properly disseminated so that clinicians can take the right decisions on the most appropriate treatment for individual women?

Ms Jowell: An essential part of rebuilding a national health service is to ensure common and high standards of care, wherever women are treated. The Calman-Hine approach to cancer treatment could not be effectively implemented by the last Government because of the obstacle of the internal market. By implementing that, we can take a co-operative approach to treating people with cancer and guarantee the high quality to which my hon. Friend refers.

Denver Summit

The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the summit of Eight held at Denver last weekend. I have placed in the Library of the House the communiqué and other documents issued following the summit.
One of the most stimulating discussions at Denver was on the need for structural reform in all our economies. Different countries face somewhat different problems, but we all face the challenge of how to take advantage of increasing globalisation and provide new job opportunities. In many countries, unemployment, particularly among young people, is far too high.
We need to combine greater labour market flexibility with action to improve work incentives, skills and employability, and reduce the risk of marginalisation. The summit welcomed the UK's plan to take forward work on that at a meeting of G8 Finance and Social Affairs Ministers in London early next year, and then at the Birmingham summit.
We also discussed the problem of transnational organised crime, which is a growing preoccupation for us all. Crime is becoming increasingly sophisticated and international, and criminals will quickly exploit the newest technologies to evade detection. We must fight them on their own ground, developing greater international co-operation and new techniques to match the threat.
Over the coming months, we shall work up specific proposals on co-operation against crime, including drug trafficking and financial crime, which we can then consider in detail at next year's summit.
In Denver, the Finance Ministers reported on the progress that they had made on measures to increase financial stability. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will lead the follow-up next year on plans further to improve co-operation between financial supervisors.
The summit focused particular attention on Africa. We agreed on the need to combat poverty through debt relief, improved market access and support for education. The priority is to focus assistance where it is most needed and will reap most benefit—that is, those countries that are introducing economic reforms and which respect the principles of human rights and good governance.
We emphasised the importance of not wasting money on unproductive, especially military, expenditure and of combating corruption. I announced that, over the next three years, Britain would increase by 50 per cent. our support for primary education, basic health care and clean water in sub-Saharan Africa.
We discussed United Nations reform, and welcomed the Secretary General's efforts. We encouraged him to undertake a system-wide review of the UN and its agencies. We agreed on the need to develop the UN's ability to prevent and resolve conflict, and we all recognised the need to solve the UN's funding crisis as soon as possible.
The leaders of the Seven also agreed to provide $300 million towards the cost of restoring the sarcophagus over the Chernobyl reactor to prevent any further leak of radioactive material.
I was pleased to get the strong support of all other leaders for our views on Hong Kong. The communiqué underlined the G8' s durable interest in Hong Kong's stability and prosperity, and looked forward to democratic elections there for a new legislature as soon as possible.
Foreign Ministers discussed a number of regional and global issues, and presented a detailed report to Heads of Government. The summit issued a separate statement on Bosnia, reaffirming our commitment to the peace agreement, and backed efforts to achieve a lasting settlement in Cyprus. The communiqué also records unanimous support for progress towards a legally binding international agreement to ban anti-personnel land mines.
I welcome Russia's participation as a major partner in the summit of the Eight. President Yeltsin played a fuller role than ever before, and we agreed to continue our efforts to help Russia to integrate into the global economic system. Russia will shortly be participating as a creditor in the Paris Club.
We naturally devoted considerable time in Denver to environmental issues, many of which are being followed up at the UN General Assembly special session which opened yesterday.
There is much that we need to do to improve the environment we live in. Cleaner air, cleaner water, less congestion and better use of scarce resources matter to all of us. In developing countries, alleviating poverty is the key to sustainable development. We are committed over time to reversing the decline in Britain's development assistance that occurred under the previous Administration.
Much of the public attention, though, has focused on efforts to tackle the threat of global warming. We made some progress at Denver, which I hope to see consolidated at the UN session in New York. Everyone accepted that, by the time of the Kyoto conference later this year, we must agree binding targets for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions beyond the year 2000.
As the House will know, the European Union has already put forward proposals for a target reduction of 15 per cent. in greenhouse gases by the year 2010. The British Government have indicated their readiness to go further. We are already likely to achieve a reduction of 10 per cent. in greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2000.
Such targets are tough, but they are achievable by policies that are sensible in their own right: an integrated transport policy that makes public transport more attractive and gets traffic flowing more smoothly; increasing the use of renewable forms of energy; improving energy efficiency in firms and the public sector, bringing it up to the standards of the best, and increasing the use of combined heat and power; and improving energy efficiency in homes—for example, through promoting self-financing schemes by the energy suppliers.
Measures aimed at producing environmental benefits are often seen as burdensome or unachievable when they are first proposed, but experience shows that sensible measures produce sensible results—as we saw with measures to promote the use of unleaded petrol, for example.
We discussed a number of other key environmental issues, including the need to work for an international agreement on forests, with suitably high standards.


We also discussed how to increase access to clean water and sanitation, and how to improve international co-ordination of efforts to protect oceans and to manage fisheries.
This was my first G8 summit and I was struck by how much better the discussions were when we had time to focus on the key issues common to all our countries. Next year, I want to take that further and concentrate on fewer issues in greater depth. In some senses, it will mean a return to the original concept of G7 and G8 summits, using the opportunity for informal but substantive discussions.
At Birmingham, I want to concentrate in particular on two subjects: the issue of jobs and employability, and the challenge posed by organised crime. The first will be a major theme of our presidency of the European Union in the first half of next year. Both are of central importance to all the G8 countries.
I am grateful to the President of the United States for his hospitality at the Denver summit this year and to the authorities there, and I am grateful to the people of Birmingham for agreeing to host next year's summit, which I am confident will be an equal success.

Mr. William Hague: I thank the Prime Minister for his statement. I welcome many aspects of the Denver summit, in particular the new and deeper participation by Russia, and the conclusions on Hong Kong and on closer co-operation in fighting organised crime.
Does the Prime Minister agree that there is often too much on the agenda at such summits? I welcome his readiness to continue the efforts of his predecessor to reduce their length and to give them sharper focus.
I welcome also the discussion at Denver about the need for structural reform of economies, and the section of the communiqué that calls on countries to
increase the responsiveness of labor markets to economic conditions".
Does the Prime Minister recognise that the achievement of increased responsiveness in the United Kingdom is a vindication of the strategy adopted by the previous Government, and is one of the reasons why the new Government have inherited the best economic prospects in a generation? How will he continue to work towards that objective? How does he believe that he will be supported in that endeavour by introducing job-destroying rigidities, such as the social chapter, into the labour market?
I welcome also the acknowledgement that aging populations mean that
Some of our countries face major challenges in sustaining their public pension systems".
Does the Prime Minister believe that the United Kingdom is one of those countries? If so, will he recognise that pension systems can be sustained better and future pensioners advantaged by pursuing innovative pensions policies rather than disparaging them?
The communiqué calls for "active aging strategies". Can the Prime Minister tell us what an active aging strategy is? Does he have one?
The Prime Minister referred also to aid for Africa and announced increased support for primary education and other projects in sub-Saharan Africa. That is a worthy objective, but from which budget will the additional funds be drawn?
I thank the Prime Minister for congratulating the previous Government in his speech in New York on their environmental achievements—although we wish that he had done so before. Will he remind the House that, thanks to the actions of the previous Government, this country is one of only three in the world that are on course to meet the Rio targets? Do the Government understand why that is so? Does the Prime Minister agree that successful free enterprise economies that are based on private ownership are in the best position to safeguard the natural environment, and that sensible incentives often work better than heavy-handed regulation?
What specific measures does the Prime Minister propose in order to achieve the additional 20 per cent. reduction in carbon dioxide emissions to which he is now committed? Can he clarify that commitment, as it was not in his statement to the House this afternoon? He mentioned policies to achieve that objective that are in place already or are so general as to be meaningless. When will he be able to shed more light on those proposals? Will they entail going back on statements made by his Industry Minister favouring coal-fired rather than gas-powered power stations? Will he pursue that target irrespective of the actions of other countries or only in concert with them?
The Denver summit failed to agree on new targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Does the Prime Minister share our dismay that the G8 failed to reach a new agreement, since real progress can be made only through international agreement? In the light of our special relationship with the United States, does the Prime Minister agree that it is regrettable that President Clinton did not accept the proposed new targets? How will the Prime Minister persuade him to do so? Is it not vital to have international agreement on targets for the decade ahead, just as targets for this decade were negotiated successfully by the previous Government at Rio?
Will the Prime Minister reassure the House that any increase in taxation in order to meet environmental objectives will be matched by reductions in other taxes so that legitimate environmental concerns are not used to justify large rises in the overall burden of taxation? The country wishes to know that, along with the fine words and the worthy objectives, the Government can produce some specific policies, successfully negotiate international agreements, and produce tax proposals that have the desired effect without damaging the growth of enterprise that, alone, provides the means of safeguarding our environment.

The Prime Minister: I welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his new position. He asked what is an active aging strategy. The best active aging strategy that I know of is to be either Leader of the Opposition or Prime Minister—we shall see how we both fare in that regard. I welcome the fact that the right hon. Gentleman agreed with much of the Denver communiqué, particularly the points about organised crime, Hong Kong and the participation of Russia. That is precisely what I am saying in relation to G7 summits. It is important that they concentrate on fewer issues, but go through them in depth.
As for structural reform, the words "responsive to change" are those that the Government have been using. They mean not only more flexible labour markets but an emphasis on education and skills, and ensuring that people can be genuinely employable within new labour markets. Decent civilised standards of treatment for people at the workplace are not inconsistent with a prosperous economy.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about Africa, budgets there and the announcement of 50 per cent. more provision for basic education and health care. The money will be found within existing budgets as part of our policy of reallocating priorities and focusing our aid on the poorest countries. Commitments over the past three years have totalled about £240 million, and commitments over the next three years will therefore be increased to about £360 million.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me also about targets and the measures that we might take to meet those which we have set ourselves. I believe that the targets that we have set ourselves are achievable by continuing with the types of policy that we have been outlining over the past few weeks—for example, in relation to an integrated transport system, working with the rail operators to ensure that they make sure that more is done to integrate their services by introducing such things as through ticketing, giving people the real choice of being able to use public transport where they wish to do so and, in relation to improved energy efficiency in firms and the public sector, the energy efficiency best practice—[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman asked me for the details, and I am giving them to him.
The energy efficiency best practice programme has a target of generating additional savings worth £800 million a year by the year 2000. We are well on target to achieve that. If we continue with the policies that we have outlined, we believe that we will meet that target. It is part of a continuing programme. As for improving energy efficiency in homes, not merely is the home energy efficiency scheme in being, but part of the new Government's proposals is the establishment of an environmental task force that will be specifically charged with assisting measures that will combat some of our environmental problems. In all these areas, we shall continue to make progress. I believe that we can meet the targets.
The right hon. Gentleman said that it was a pity that Denver G8 failed to reach agreement. It is a pity that we were unable to go further there. The key event, however, will be the Kyoto conference, which will take place later this year. The US has given an indication that it will be in a position then to agree legally binding targets for the future. If that can happen, that will be substantial progress. Yes, we would have liked to go further at Denver, but, as I have said, I think that the key issue is what happens at the Kyoto conference. I think that the possibilities there are good.
The right hon. Gentleman will have to await the Budget for any matters of taxation. I believe that the most important thing that we can do in respect of meeting the targets to which I have referred is to continue with the measures that relate especially to transport and energy efficiency, which we have already outlined. If we do that,

we have the best chance of making a significant contribution to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, which is what we all want to see.

Mr. Paddy Ashdown: I join the Prime Minister, first, in welcoming the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) to leadership of the Conservative party. I think that I am right in saying that he is the sixth leader of one or other of the two parties, Conservative and Labour, that I have seen since becoming leader of mine. I wish him—[Interruption.] Look how I look, Madam Speaker? I look younger every day. I wish the right hon. Gentleman well in his task, which most people regard as impossible.
I very much welcome the thrust of the Prime Minister's statement. The Denver summit of Eight was obviously more successful than most of these summits and it achieved a number of notable things. I welcome particularly the inclusion of Russia. I especially welcome the clear statement on Hong Kong. It is, of course, the case that the Sino-British agreement is an international agreement. The fact that that will be observed in detail by the international community will be a great incentive to ensure that the agreement is carried out in full, especially in relation to the preservation of democracy.
I also welcome the clear statement on Bosnia. I am sure that the Prime Minister will agree that, unless the warring parties understand that they must make faster progress, there is a real possibility that the momentum for peace will slip away and the situation will slide back towards warfare and conflict, perhaps even in the very near future.
I regret that there was not greater agreement on the environment, although perhaps that was too much to ask. It is welcome to see the Prime Minister and the Government taking the lead on environmental matters. I am almost tempted to say that, once again, they seem to be observing more of our manifesto than theirs, but that would be curmudgeonly, so I shall not say it.
No doubt the Prime Minister was happy to see the newspaper headlines about his leadership when he returned. I remind him that I have seen those headlines before, and so has he. I remember the 1989 summit, from which the then Prime Minister, Mrs. Thatcher, returned to headlines—in The Daily Telegraph I think—saying, "Thatcher to save the planet" and "Thatcher dons green mantle for economic summit". The right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) had similar headlines. Does the Prime Minister realise that he will be judged not by the rhetoric or the newspaper headlines, but by results and actions?
We will look for those results when we consider next week's Budget. Will there be a move towards green taxation? Will there be a reduction of VAT on home insulation? Will there be a national home insulation programme? The Prime Minister cannot answer those questions now, but does he recognise that we will judge what he does rather than what he says? He will be judged by his actions and not by the rhetoric, although welcome, that he used in Denver and New York.

The Prime Minister: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his agreement to much of what we did. I shall deal with his two main points.
We want faster progress in Bosnia. We want a far greater impetus towards implementing the Dayton agreement and greater pressure from the countries


involved to achieve that. I have been saying that for some time, as has President Clinton. If pressure to reach agreement is taken off those countries, there is a risk that the whole process will slip backwards; that would be desperately unfortunate. I agree whole-heartedly with the right hon. Gentleman on that.
On the environment, the right hon. Gentleman will have to wait for the Budget, as he knows. I agree that the issue is results and not rhetoric. In the programmes that we have already outlined, there is at least the prospect that results will be achieved. I believe that they are achievable, provided that the national will and the political will are there.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On Africa, does the Prime Minister recall that the one subject about which President Mandela wrote a personal letter to the previous Prime Minister was his unease about Libyan sanctions? The unease felt about Lockerbie has been outlined in 11 Adjournment debates. Will the Prime Minister also reflect on the Channel 4 programmes that cast grave doubt on whether the Libyans were responsible for the brutal and wicked murder of WPC Yvonne Fletcher? Before dismissing them merely as television speculation, will he take into account the fact that to do so he would have to suppose that George Styles, the senior ballistics officer of the British Army, does not know much about ballistics, that Hugh Thomas, who was the senior consultant at the Royal Victoria hospital in Belfast, does not know much about the angles at which bullets enter bodies, and that Bernard Knight, as the distinguished Home Office pathologist in charge of the Cromwell street investigation, does not know about pathology? Will he take this matter seriously?

The Prime Minister: As I said to my hon. Friend last week, the Libyan sanctions will remain until Libya complies with the United Nations Security Council resolutions. The Channel 4 programme was a follow-up to the original programme that was made some time last year. The continuing investigation into the murder of WPC Fletcher is a matter for the police, and anyone who has new evidence relating to the crime should pass it to them. The original extensive investigation by the Metropolitan police forensic science laboratory and the pathologist Dr. Ian West concluded that she was killed by a bullet fired from the Libyan People's Bureau. Every piece of new evidence has been reviewed, but my advice is that the view prevails that she was killed by a bullet from the Libyan People's Bureau.
The police are reviewing the contents of the programme broadcast on 5 June and they expect to have completed their analysis by the end of September. I do not hold out to my hon. Friend any prospect of change in that respect; I merely say that, whenever new evidence is presented or claims are made, they are investigated. However, the best advice that we have at the moment remains the original advice.

Mr. David Maclean: As most greenhouse gases are produced by America, south America, China and the developing world, why is the Prime Minister determined to punish British people, particularly our rural constituents, by setting targets that

go much further than those observed by the rest of the world and will be particularly damaging to Britain? Does he not agree that we should sign up unilaterally to targets for greenhouse gas emissions rather than trying to make a grand green gesture that will hurt our constituents?

The Prime Minister: It will not hurt our constituents at all. The agreement that was reached between European Union members for a 15 per cent. reduction in greenhouse gas emissions based on 1990 levels was negotiated by the Government of which the right hon. Gentleman was a member. We believe that we can go further, but, even on existing policy, by 2000 we will have achieved a 10 per cent. reduction.
Of course, we want other countries to go further. That is why we have put pressure on them. The Kyoto conference will provide an opportunity to see what progress has been made with the United States and other countries, but I believe that the measures that have been taken with the support of right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House have been to the advantage of our constituents. It will be to the advantage of our constituents if we reduce pollution and the damage that has been caused not merely to the world's climate, but to clean air in Britain.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: In relation to land mines, have other countries stated their intention to follow Britain's lead in banning the production, sale and trade in those horrible weapons?

The Prime Minister: No specific country is about to follow precisely the lines that we have articulated, but the importance of the words in the communiqué is that there is agreement in principle that we need an internationally binding agreement banning the sale of anti-personnel mines. We are making progress, but we still have a long way to go. The fact that Britain has taken a lead will help to achieve that international agreement.

Mr. Eric Forth: Did the meeting take any opportunity to compare the economic reforms in the United States with those in the European Union? If so, were any conclusions drawn about the rather different approach taken in north America from that in Europe? Did the Prime Minister draw any conclusions about the direction that the European Union seems to wish to take, particularly in respect of labour market flexibility, and the disadvantage that that would inflict on the European Union in a globally competitive economy?

The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, it is important that we combine labour market flexibility with investment in people. The United States recognises that it has a significant problem in large numbers of young people in particular who are shut out from mainstream society without any hope or opportunity. That is something which our countries have to correct. It is not a one-way process: there is much to be learned on both sides. There are also measures that all countries agree make a difference to economic performance.
In contradistinction to the Opposition, I believe that there is a role for government, but that it is a different role today. It relates to infrastructure, education, technology and assisting small businesses and needs to be fulfilled here as well as in other countries.

Mr. Desmond Browne: I welcome the concentration by the G8 summit on


international crime and drug trafficking. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister mentioned specific proposals that are being worked up for discussion next year. What specific measures does Britain wish to see taken, with especial reference to the threat of organised crime emanating from Russian and eastern Europe?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right. As the host of the G8 summit next year in Birmingham, we are expected to bring forward specific measures to combat organised crime. Already, the G8 working group has agreed some 40 detailed recommendations to counter transnational organised crime. Those are now being implemented, and include extradition proceedings, co-operation between law enforcement agencies and, specifically, attempts to track down the proceeds of drug trafficking. We hope that we will be able to take a significant step forward next year. One of the advantages of Russia's involvement in the summit is being able to talk face to face with the Russians about the measures they need to take to defeat the organised crime that often comes from Russia and is spreading across Europe.

Mr. John D. Taylor: The Ulster Unionists also welcome the Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition to his new position and look forward to working with him on many issues, including the important one of Northern Ireland. The importance of that subject was underlined by the fact that the Prime Minister, following his journey back to the United Kingdom, is already devoting several hours to it today. We thank the Prime Minister for the statement that he has given on the Denver summit and, in particular, the apparent contribution he made to the summit on behalf of our nation.
I welcome the communiqué's reference to a lasting settlement in Cyprus. Does the Prime Minister agree that a lasting settlement in Cyprus would be preferable before the accession of Cyprus as a member of the European Union? Does he agree that it is important that the Government's attitude to the Turkish and Greek Cypriot communities is even handed and, therefore, does he agree that the Government should follow the example of the previous Government and that the Foreign Secretary should meet the leaders of both communities in their respective parts of Cyprus?

The Prime Minister: On the latter point, I will let the right hon. Gentleman know exactly what is proposed. I am sure that there will be no objection to that. On the question of Cyprus, the possibility of accession negotiations taking place makes it all the more important that a settlement is achieved. The United Kingdom fully supports the UN-led search for a settlement. The prospects of EU accession and the need to reduce tension make that settlement all the more necessary.
We support the EU commitment to open accession negotiations with Cyprus six months after the end of the intergovernmental conference, which will be during our presidency, so we will have a leading role to play. The conclusions of the Denver summit underline the importance that the international community attaches to the issue, and I hope that we can move forward on it. The right hon. Gentleman will know that Richard Holbrooke has been appointed as the US presidential envoy and Sir David Hannay is the UK's special representative.

I hope that their appointment will assist the process and help to develop ever greater urgency in the search for a settlement.

Helen Jones: While I am sure that the House welcomes my right hon. Friend's comments about tackling the problem of world poverty, will he indicate the time scale within which he thinks Britain will reach the UN target for development assistance?

The Prime Minister: No, I cannot put a specific time limit on it, because we will have to do it as we can. If my hon. Friend looks back at the record of the previous Labour Government, she will see that we made tremendous strides towards achieving it. We will do it as we can and we consider it important. It is essential to realise that the development of such countries, especially in Africa, is in the long-term interests of our country. We are not being asked to sacrifice our self-interest for others: there is a mutual self-interest in ensuring that the problems are dealt with.

Mr. Richard Ottaway: Does the Prime Minister agree that population growth is the root cause of African poverty and indeed, of general environmental decline? Will he confirm that he will make that one of his reallocated priorities and will he continue the all-party consensus on the subject?

The Prime Minister: I shall certainly continue the all-party consensus. However, the issue of population growth must be seen in the context of how the countries are developing. The greater their prospects of serious economic development, with a proper enterprise sector in their economies and reduced corruption—because corruption is a blight both on inward investment and on any sensible allocation of aid—the better things will be. It is important to see measures related to population growth in the context of all the other things that we are doing to bring about a different way of life in those countries. However, as I said, I am happy for the cross-party consensus on the subject to continue.

Mr. Keith Vaz: I warmly welcome the Prime Minister's statement, but does he agree that more should be done by our G7 partners to ensure the full implementation of the HIPC—heavily indebted poor countries—initiative by the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, because that is one of the ways in which we can help to reduce debt for the poorest countries in the world?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I agree. The HIPC agreement is important, and the new Secretary of State for International Development has laid emphasis upon it. As I discovered during some of the bilateral meetings that I had with those from African countries during the United Nations meeting, some of those countries spend a vast proportion of the public money they spend simply on debt repayment, so that, of their overall expenditure, only a small percentage is left for trying to develop their countries. In the end, that is a huge inhibition on their development.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Did the summit accept the fact that it is traffic congestion


rather than traffic volume that causes the most air pollution problems? Will the Prime Minister make a contribution to solving such problems by removing as speedily as possible the freeze on road schemes designed to remove pollution, including those for the A13 and M25, which would make a considerable contribution to reducing air pollution?

The Prime Minister: We have moved pretty quickly from world statesmanship to constituency interests. As for the individual road schemes, the hon. Gentleman will know that a road review is now being undertaken, and I cannot tell him anything about his particular road. However, if there is something that we are about to do about it, I shall let him know. I might add that I believe that one of the most important things that we can do to reduce pollution is to encourage the use of public transport.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: In the attempt to combat international crime, has my right hon. Friend considered using the services of George Carman? As for the problem of the hole in the ozone layer, will he remember that he will not be able to solve it by market forces, nor by using a man with a bike, a ladder and an enterprise allowance? It can be solved only by intervention, planning and organization—[HON. MEMBERS: "Socialism."]—by other nation states. That cannot be done by market forces.

The Prime Minister: If I may so to my hon. Friend, there is some truth in what he says. [Interruption.] Nervous looks all round. I do not know about hiring George Carman. I do not think that we can afford his fees; I shall have to speak to the Chancellor about that. In my view, the environmental problems require a mixture of solutions. Of course, there are important measures involving regulation and intervention. I agree that if we want an integrated transport strategy, it will not come about through market forces.
On the other hand, unless developing countries in Africa and elsewhere have effective market economies, with private enterprise in them, they will never make the transition to more developed economies that is essential if they are to tackle their environmental as well as their other problems. If this does not seem like too much of a balancing act, I would say that we need a mixture of the two.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I welcome the general thrust of what has been said in the exchanges on the statement, and emphasise the point that expenditure will have to be involved in some aspects of it. Will the Prime Minister elaborate on what he meant when he said that the leaders had emphasised that there should be no "unproductive" expenditure, particularly in the military sphere? Will there be further developments in disarmament and particularly in getting rid of nuclear weapons—surely one of the white elephants of this century? Could not the money involved be better spent in other areas?

The Prime Minister: I meant that it is important that any aid that we give to countries is used for genuinely

productive purposes, not for corruption or buying weapons. Much of the debt of those countries is related to their weapons burdens. One of the reasons why it is important that Russia becomes a member and creditor of the Paris Club is precisely so that some of those debt problems can be reduced.
It is important that we continue with a properly structured aid programme and we would like to increase it if possible. But the quid pro quo is that the money must go into economies that genuinely have a chance to use it constructively. There must be an insistence that proper strings are attached to make sure that money is not wasted on corrupt or unproductive investment.
Finally, aid must be provided in a way that gives those economies a long-term future, rather than shovelling money for no proper purpose. In the end, our constituents are prepared to accept that we have an international and moral responsibility, but they insist—perfectly reasonably—that if money is spent, it should be spent properly.

Mr. Tony McNulty: Did the Prime Minister underline to the other Heads of Government the importance of ensuring the stability, peace and democratic future of Hong Kong? Will he outline some of the discussions that were held to ensure that those are guaranteed?

The Prime Minister: It is important that we have a continuing commitment to Hong Kong and, under the terms of the joint declaration, we will be involved for a significant period after the handover. We have made it clear that one of the key issues is the undertaking to hold democratic elections within 12 months of the handover. We must make sure also that we are sufficiently mobilising international opinion, so that not merely Britain but all parts of the international community are exerting pressure. The importance of the words in that communiqué was precisely that—there was a consensus in the international community that the joint declaration must be adhered to.
We want a strong and stable relationship with China—that is important to the future of the people of Hong Kong—but it must be on the basis of adherence to the terms of the joint declaration. That is the international agreement we concluded and that must be the basis for our relationship with China and Hong Kong.

Mr. John Wilkinson: The Prime Minister said that he was looking to an integrated transport strategy on the part of the United Kingdom to achieve the British contribution towards a reduction of 15 per cent. in greenhouse gases by the European Union by 2010. Can we therefore expect that, in perhaps the most congested and polluted part of the United Kingdom in terms of road transport—Greater London and the south-east of England—the Government will be investing money in improving public transport and, in particular, in London Underground, which is grievously in need of investment to which Labour committed itself during the election campaign?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will know that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister will make proposals in respect of London Underground in due


course. Pollution in London is a big problem and that is precisely why the integrated transport strategy is the right one. Next spring, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister will publish a White Paper on integrated transport as a whole. I look forward to its receiving the hon. Member's support and that of other Conservative Members, because that will be extremely important if we have any chance of meeting the EU target.

Mr. Phil Hope: I congratulate the Prime Minister on his success at the summit. What progress was made on the UN funding crisis and, in particular, on the refusal of the United States to pay its contribution to the UN?

The Prime Minister: Without exaggerating to my hon. Friend, I think that I can say that some progress is being made. President Clinton is personally committed to resolving the funding crisis and it has helped enormously that the new Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, has made such a good and promising start in the reforms that he is making to the United Nations secretariat and the way in which it works. There is a general consensus that if those reforms receive the requisite degree of support and genuinely go deep and strong and make the necessary changes, the funding crisis should be resolved. We certainly want it to be resolved. It is very much in our interests that it is.

Mr. Edward Garnier: Since I took silk a minute or so, I think, before the Prime Minister's wife, may I suggest that he takes my advice on the employment of QCs rather than that of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)? I congratulate him on his kind remarks about his predecessor and his Government over the Rio targets. It was gracious of him to acknowledge that. As I think that he represents a partly rural constituency, as I do, will he ensure that nothing that the Government do in seeking to achieve environmental targets damages the rural economy or the ability of our farmers and other rural residents to make a living and thrive in the modern economy?

The Prime Minister: I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for his kind words about my remarks. I believe that achieving those environmental targets will not damage the rural economy at all. Indeed, properly done, they should help it, since farmers and those living in rural communities would perhaps benefit as much as anyone from a better transport system and, of course, people in rural communities will particularly benefit from greater energy efficiency.
The only way that we will make this argument on the environment work is when people cease to believe that it requires some sort of sacrifice of their interests and recognise that it is in everyone's collective interest that we make the changes to the environment that are plainly and obviously necessary.

Mr. Michael Clapham: Did the G8 discuss during the session on international crime ways and measures to prevent child pornography?

The Prime Minister: We did not discuss that specifically and I do not believe that it was specifically

referred to in the communiqué, although the subject was raised at the European Union summit in Amsterdam, where suggestions were made as to how we can co-operate on such issues. It is important that we do so. In general terms, there was a reference in the communiqué to different types of organised crime. On paedophiles, one of the most worrying aspects is that there is some evidence that that crime is happening on an organised basis across national boundaries. Perhaps that is something which we can study in the run-up to the Birmingham summit next year.

Sir David Madel: What the Prime Minister said on green issues at Denver will considerably affect the car industry and employment unless those matters are handled carefully. I remind the Prime Minister of the extreme anxiety on the Benches behind him when Ford threatened the production of the Escort at Halewood. The thing to do is to change the tax system so that car manufacturers are encouraged to produce more fuel-efficient and pollution-free engines. That is the way to guarantee jobs and satisfy environmentalists.

The Prime Minister: I agree that incentives have a role to play, although I cannot comment on any particular taxation proposals. Most people accept that it will be a matter of choice whether people use their cars. We should try to give them a better choice than they have at present. There are plenty of people who, in certain instances, would use public transport if it were there and available to them. The evidence from abroad as well as here, in certain instances, is clear.
I agree that this has to be done in co-operation with the car industry. That is absolutely essential. The hon. Gentleman will remember that when the debates about catalytic converters and unleaded petrol were taking place, the car industry came on side after a time to help develop those initiatives and they were successful. I commend to him the speech on the environment and business made by John Browne, the head of British Petroleum, a few weeks ago. He will see from that that many people in business see environmental measures as having a positive effect on business, not a negative one.

Mr. Ted Rowlands: I welcome the acknowledgement that limitation of arms and military expenditure in sub-Saharan Africa is extremely important. Were there any specific proposals to achieve it?

The Prime Minister: The initiative is one which I announced in relation to our own programmes. As the money is allocated, my hon. Friend will be able to see the conditions on which the aid is given. We are anxious to ensure that the money is spent on education, health care and sanitation; it is important that we ensure that no aid is being siphoned off into what is effectively military expenditure. He will see that developing. On the multilateral side, we intend to carry on working with other countries to get those principles accepted by them, too.

Mr. Graham Brady: Does the Prime Minister agree that it is vital that we seek


to move freight from roads to railways? Will he join me in congratulating the privatised rail industry on the measures that it has taken to encourage that process?

The Prime Minister: I am happy to congratulate anyone who contributes to solving the problem. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions is in touch with the rail operators at the moment, to consider how they can help to make the system more integrated. One of the worries that people always had about privatisation was that it would break up and fragment a unified system. It may be possible within the existing system to try to mitigate some of those problems. That is precisely what we want to work on. If the rail operators help us to achieve that, I shall be the first to congratulate them.

Mr. Barry Sheerman: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the stand that he took on the environment. I am sure that at Denver he spoke of the link between solving the problems of the environment and jobs and employability. Will he ensure that we in this country start to make that link? I am sure that he has seen the dispiriting league table showing that the investment record of the private sector over the past year was down yet again under the previous Government. If we are to tackle the environment and make jobs out of tackling it, we must lead in research. I hope that my right hon. Friend will lead a crusade on that.

The Prime Minister: I can certainly assure my hon. Friend that we will make the link between jobs and employability and the environment, as we recognise that it is important to do so. Recent estimates by independent international organisations suggest that environmental technology could be one of the growth areas in employment over the next few decades.
It is tremendously important that we also recognise that those companies with the most advanced technology, capable of producing greater energy efficiency, are among the most successful anywhere in the world. Companies find that if, for example, they introduce proper measures for waste recycling, and engage properly with energy efficiency, they not only contribute to the overall impact on the environment of business but reduce their costs. It is extremely important to make the connection, and we will certainly do so.

Mr. James Clappison: I welcome the Prime Minister's frankness in acknowledging that the previous Government's policies, such as the energy efficiency best practice programme and the home energy efficiency scheme, enabled this country to be one of the minority of developed nations that met and surpassed their targets on greenhouse gases. Does he favour a switch to coal-fired power stations?

The Prime Minister: On the latter point—as the hon. Gentleman knows, because we agreed with it when it was the previous Government's policy—I favour a balanced energy policy. We have been perfectly happy all the way through to agree on the energy efficiency measures that were introduced under the previous Government and which we will develop. Indeed, the environmental task force will be a development of existing policies.
In respect of renewable energy, we are encouraging the greater use of solar energy and wind power, particularly through the non-fossil fuel obligation, which encourages power suppliers to make use of renewable energy sources. We will introduce a Bill to ensure that the levy continues, as it would otherwise expire next year. I am perfectly happy to accept that good work was done before; it was done with the Labour party's consent and we look forward to developing it further. If that can be done on the basis of political agreement, so much the better.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: I welcome everything that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said about the conditions for giving overseas aid, but is it not vital that we recognise that developing nations have so much poverty, on scales that we can hardly envisage, to eliminate that they sometimes find that the less environmentally advantageous way is the easy way? It is essential that overseas aid and the environment are linked, because environmental problems never recognise national boundaries.

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right. That is one reason why it is important that, when we increase our aid to sub-Saharan Africa, we do so on the basis of programmes that will be environmentally beneficial as well as assisting the development of those countries. During the UN special session, we also announced measures that will assist forestry. There is a range of issues where we can link aid and the development assistance that we are giving to measures that will improve the environment. That should be read in conjunction with the measures to reduce the level of debt. For many of those countries, the level of debt is the single biggest problem that they face.

Mr. Ian Bruce: On greenhouse gas reductions, the right hon. Gentleman knows that much of Europe, and certainly his party, was wedded to carbon taxes. Was that raised at the Denver summit or later at the environment summit? How did the Prime Minister persuade people that his Government were keen on reducing greenhouse gases when it is their policy to reduce the cost of domestic fuels by taking money off VAT?

The Prime Minister: We have no proposals to introduce carbon taxes and that was not discussed at Denver. We believe that the measures that we have outlined will give us the very best chance of meeting the targets that we have set ourselves. The single best thing that we can do in relation to that is to improve energy efficiency. VAT on fuel harmed a lot of people, particularly those living in poverty, who faced rising fuel bills and sometimes, in the case of old age pensioners, a choice between heating and eating in winter. That is not acceptable.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: My right hon. Friend made passing reference to international fisheries management. Has Japan made any promise to impose tougher restraints on its tuna fishing fleet? May I remind him that that fleet has imposed severe economic damage on numerous coastal or littoral nations in the third world and that its vessels are beginning to appear in the north Atlantic?

The Prime Minister: I am not aware of any particular moves by the Japanese on international fisheries


management. Perhaps I could write to my hon. Friend on the tuna fishing fleet, because I am afraid that I cannot give an answer off the top of my head.

Mr. Cynog Dafis: I understand that there will be a further statement this week on earth summit 2, but, meanwhile, could the Prime Minister tell us more about the evolving American position on greenhouse gas emissions? America is responsible for 25 per cent. of global CO2 emissions. Is it likely that the United States will agree to significant reductions in Kyoto in December? Does he agree that environmental sustainability must become a major foreign policy issue and that countries that refuse to take it seriously should be regarded as a threat to global security?

The Prime Minister: I agree that it is important that we co-operate with other countries in safeguarding the environment, which is why we have taken the action that we have. In respect of the United States, there was some progress at Denver because all the countries committed themselves to binding targets for the reduction of greenhouse gases by 2010. That is a step forward. I think that the critical time will be between now and the Kyoto conference, when I very much hope that the United States will be able to do that. I think that both the President and the Vice-President are personally sympathetic, but obviously big interests are involved, and the United States has particular problems. I am hopeful of making progress.

Mr. Michael Connarty: Everyone commends the Prime Minister and the G7 leaders for their initiative on sub-Saharan Africa. Did they discuss indebtedness and poverty in Asia and in central and south America, where, for example, Nicaragua had, when I last read about it, the single largest debt per head of population of any country in the world? That is linked to the growth and distribution of addictive drugs such as cocaine and heroin. Was there discussion of whether policing was not enough and whether programmes were needed to lift such countries out of poverty and their dependence on growing addictive drugs?

The Prime Minister: There certainly was discussion of the debt problems of countries not only in Africa but in South America and elsewhere. There is a recognition that the problem is not by any means limited to Africa. There are programmes in place that encourage development of the economies of indebted countries and reduce their dependence on the production of drugs. Part of the discussion this week in New York at the UN special session will be on how to intensify those programmes and make them more effective.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: While I am sure that the Prime Minister is right to be critical of those industrial countries that have done little or nothing on CO2 emissions, does he agree that it is vital that we press ahead and do the most that we can for both our own environment and the global environment? Will he make it clear that there is no truth in the interpretation that has been put on the comments of some Ministers that Britain will stick to the new Government's 20 per cent. target for

cuts in CO2 emissions only if other countries co-operate in cutting their emissions? Will he confirm that our target is not conditional on the action of others?

The Prime Minister: It is not a conditional target, but the truth is that it is much easier for us to meet it if other countries are moving in the same direction. That is in a sense a statement of the obvious.
I believe that there is a general will in the European Union to make progress. It is possible that by Kyoto we will get a better deal than anything that is on the table now. Under the measures that we are taking now, we will achieve a 10 per cent. reduction by the year 2000 of 1990 levels. That is well in line with what we can then do to achieve our target. It is possible to do this by taking measures that are sensible in any event, but it is obviously easier if other countries are also taking such measures.

Mr. Barry Jones: With regard to the Prime Minister's welcome remarks on employment, how soon does he think that we can see more long-term unemployed, and the army of unskilled unemployed, placed in meaningful employment? My right hon. Friend will know that that is a matter of urgent interest in Wales, for example.

The Prime Minister: I hope very much that we can make a start on that as soon as we have provisions in our programme, such as the windfall tax, in place. There was a strong recognition among all countries that structural unemployment—people are sometimes unemployed through generations—is a problem which we all have a responsibility to tackle in our countries. Many of the problems relating to crime and social disorder stem from structural unemployment.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: Britain has a good record on reducing carbon dioxide emissions, but does my right hon. Friend acknowledge that much of it is due to low economic growth in the early 1990s and, more especially, the dash for gas in the past few years? I agree with the 20 per cent. target by 2010, but it is set against 2.25 per cent. per year economic growth, which is a compound 50 per cent. increase in living standards. To use 20 per cent. less energy will entail a 50 per cent. increase in energy efficiency. We are setting ourselves demanding targets, which may mean hard choices.

The Prime Minister: It can be said that the progress that we have made is in some part governed by the low levels of economic activity in the years immediately following 1990, but we are on course to meet the target in 2000—10 per cent., at least half of the total—with projections of growth of more than 2 per cent. per year. I believe that it is well possible to do it. Yes, it will require a real seriousness of intent, but we have only scratched the surface of the possibilities of energy efficiency. There is an awful lot more that can be done and which we will do.

Mr. Neil Gerrard: In relation to the money agreed for restoring the sarcophagus at Chernobyl, was there specific agreement on a time scale for that to be done? As we know that in Russia and other parts of the former Soviet Union there are other nuclear power


stations that have the same sort of outdated technology and pose the same potential dangers as Chernobyl, what discussion was there on what could be done to prevent another Chernobyl in the future?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise that point. A significant part of our discussion was devoted not only to the problems of the remaining reactors at Chernobyl, but to other outdated nuclear reactors. Of the money that has been pledged, the European Union's share will come principally from the TACIS programme—technical assistance to the Commonwealth of Independent States—but there will be a small bilateral contribution from Britain spread over a number of years. That is absolutely essential if we are to reach the target date of closing Chernobyl by 2000.
There is a great sense of concern that it is important that we move ahead in this matter, and the memorandum of understanding that we reached with Ukraine will be tremendously important in that respect. We will make progress, but I have to say that it was one of the most concerning aspects of our discussions, because there is still an awful lot that needs to be done.

Orders of the Day — Plant Varieties Bill

Order for Second Reading read

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jeff Rooker): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The basic purpose of the Bill is to implement the 1991 revisions to the international convention for the protection of new varieties of plants, or the UPOV convention as it is commonly known—UPOV is a French acronym, which I shall not seek to translate for the House. At the same time, the Bill will align the standards of protection offered by United Kingdom national systems of plant breeders' rights with those already available under the parallel, but quite separate, European Community plant breeders' rights regime, which was established in September 1994. The UK will therefore be able to ratify the international convention.
Plant breeders' rights are a form of intellectual property—similar in many ways to patents—which enable plant breeders to obtain protection for their new varieties and an income, through royalties, from their commercial exploitation. A vibrant and successful plant breeding industry, committed to investment in developing new, improved varieties, is vital to the success of UK agriculture and of the nursery trade. A robust system of plant variety protection is essential to provide the necessary incentives to investment in plant breeding.
In many ways, I would describe the Bill as a one-nation Bill, where old Labour—[Laughter.] I shall say that again: this is a one-nation Bill, where old Tory meets new Labour.

Mr. David Curry: Did the Minister write his own speech?

Mr. Rooker: Yes, I did write this bit.
The Bill implements a 1991 international agreement of the previous Government. Consultation was conducted in November 1994 and a draft Bill was published in February this year. As 80 per cent. of the Bill re-enacts existing legislation, I do not propose to treat the House to a detailed speech on Second Reading as though this was a brand new subject, fresh to the House. I will, of course, touch on the main changes from existing legislation, because it is important to do so for proper scrutiny. Subject to the will of the House, we will take other stages today and I am willing to answer detailed questions about specific aspects in Committee, given that there are several amendments to be discussed.
Plant breeding is an international system which, for more than 30 years, has been underpinned at international level by the UPOV convention. The UK played a major role in the development of the first UPOV convention, which was signed in 1961, and was a founder member of the union established by the convention. The union remains the main international forum for discussion,


co-operation and agreement on plant variety protection; the UK played a leading role in the past and will continue to do so in the future.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Has my hon. Friend any idea who will represent the United Kingdom in future?

Mr. Rooker: My hon. Friend is predictable. Earlier this morning, because the matter was not covered in the briefings, I asked my officials about the devolution aspects of the Bill. On the basis that the controller of plant variety rights represents the United Kingdom, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food covers the budget.
To the best of my knowledge, and subject to discussion on other legislation, the controller will continue to represent the United Kingdom. This may or may not be a devolved matter, but it seems inconceivable that it would be in future. Basically, this is a United Kingdom issue. The United Kingdom is a member of UPOV and will continue to be. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point, because I had raised it in any event and we need clarity; needless to say, it will come in future legislation.
Technology has moved on since 1964 and it was the driving force behind the revisions in 1991. Israel, Denmark and the Netherlands have already ratified the 1991 revisions. When the Bill receives Royal Assent and once we have ratified the convention, we shall be the third member of the European Union to ratify it. It is worth taking a lead in Europe and setting an example. Against that background, it is essential to provide UK plant breeders with the additional protection of the 1991 convention, to provide a secure basis for future investment in breeding in this country.
It is highly desirable that we bring our national system of protection in line with that of the Community regime, which is already based on the 1991 convention. Plant breeders have a choice between national systems of protection and the Community system, which offers a right that is valid in all 15 member states. The Community regime is, however, more expensive than the national systems. A breeder who intends to commercialise his variety in one or two EU countries will find it more economic, therefore, to opt for national protection, provided the protection is as good as that offered by the Community regime. That is an important aspect of the Bill.
If the national regime is aligned with the Community regime, plant breeders will be able to obtain the same standards of protection more cheaply if they intend to confine commercialisation of a variety to the UK or perhaps to one or two other EU countries. However, it will also put an end to the confusion that can arise when two systems that are different, but have the same users—plant breeders, farmers and seed processors—operate side by side.
In broad terms, the main changes in the Bill compared to the Plant Varieties and Seeds Act 1964 are, first, that the possibility of protection is extended to all genera and species; secondly, that the rules on prior exploitation in advance of an application for rights are relaxed to allow breeders, if they so wish and are prepared to take the risk, to test the market in the UK for their varieties before

seeking protection; thirdly, that a simplified system of provisional protection pending a grant of rights is introduced; and, fourthly, that the breeder's right is strengthened and extended in several areas.
We are also taking the opportunity to extend the period during which proceedings may be taken for contravention of seed regulations from six to 12 months in Great Britain. That mainly affects what I might call, in my language, the seed potato scams in Scotland. That provision is contained in clause 44.
When one compares the Bill to the 1964 Act, one finds that perhaps the most fundamental changes are in clause 6 and 7; I shall concentrate on those and on references to clause 9.
Clauses 6 and 7 set out the scope of plant breeders' rights. The basic right in the 1964 Act is the exclusive right to sell propagating material of a protected variety or produce propagating material for sale. The Bill changes the nature of the breeder's right from the right to do to the right to prevent others from doing certain things with propagating material of a protected variety. This brings plant breeders' rights closer to patent rights, but the change in itself is, and will be, thought to have little practical effect.
Clause 6 sets out the extent of the breeder's rights in a protected variety. The key change is the much wider scope of things that the breeder can prevent others from doing without his authority, including, for example, any production or reproduction of propagating material, conditioning—by which I mean preparing for planting—import, export and so on. Taken together, provisions in clause 6 give the breeder control of all the things necessary to exploit a variety. That includes the use of farm-saved seed, which I shall come to when I discuss clause 9.

Mr. Tim Boswell: Does it also include the breeder's right to constrain the use by others, in varieties that have already been developed, of genetic manipulation, and the apportionment of the rights in those cases? I raise that point now for later consideration.

Mr. Rooker: I do not want to repeat myself, but I guarantee that I shall refer to that later—if not on Second Reading, in Committee.
In normal circumstances, the breeder's right is exhausted once propagating material is disposed of with his consent to produce a commercial crop. For example, he cannot exercise control of wheat seed sold to produce a crop of milling wheat and used for that purpose. In other words, the breeder has no control of the production or use of consumption crops.
However, the ability of the breeder to take action against infringement of his rights has been strengthened by extending his rights to harvested material that has been obtained from the unauthorised use of propagating material, in circumstances where the breeder has not had a reasonable opportunity to exercise rights against the material before it is harvested.
The Bill includes an optional provision from the 1991 convention that allows Ministers to extend rights, by regulation, to specific products made directly from harvested material of particular types of varieties that have been obtained through unauthorised use of propagating and harvested material, where the breeder has not had a reasonable opportunity to exercise his rights at an earlier stage. That is a crucial part of the changes.
The extension of rights to enable the breeder to act against harvested material and, where provided for in regulations, directly made products, is known as the "cascade" principle. I emphasise that it does not give plant breeders a choice between acting against propagating or consumption material. The breeder must always act against infringement of his rights at the earliest possible stage. He must, therefore, act against unauthorised use of propagating material right up to the point of harvest, if he can reasonably do so. If he knows of an infringement of his rights before harvest of the infringing material, he must act at that point—he cannot decide to wait until after harvest and act against the consumption crop.
The most obvious instance where a breeder might not have the opportunity to exercise rights at an earlier stage is unauthorised use of propagating material outside the United Kingdom, in a country that does not offer protection to it, followed by the import of harvested material or, possibly, of a product made directly from the harvested material. An example would be the import of cut flowers that have been created from that earlier material. The breeder would have no opportunity to act because the flowers would be created outside the UK and the breeder would not know about it beforehand, but the import of the product of that seed is the point at which he can take action.
Clause 7 implements the extension of the breeder's right in a protected variety to encompass a second variety dependent on it, which is a new provision in the 1991 convention.
There are two types of dependency. The first, which is already recognised in the 1964 Act, occurs when a dependent variety can be obtained only as a result of repeated use of a protected variety. The most common example is that of hybrid varieties that can be obtained only by returning constantly to the parent line. In practical terms, that shift of emphasis is unlikely to have a substantial effect on the current use and production of hybrids, especially as parent lines and dependent hybrids are commonly "owned" by the same plant breeder.
The second type of dependency recognised in the Bill—essential derivation—represents a more fundamental change, introduced to address developments in plant breeding technology. Protected varieties may freely be used in plant breeding programmes. The free use of germplasm to develop new varieties is, and has always been, a fundamental principle of UPOV. However, where the resultant change is very small—typically, one characteristic—but sufficient to make the second variety distinct from the initial variety, and in all other respects the second variety expresses the same characteristics as the initial variety, it may be essentially derived from the initial variety. In other words, there is no cop-out. The plant breeder's rights are protected.
Clause 7 extends the umbrella of protection in the initial variety to cover the essentially derived variety. It is possible, with modern technology, for people to try to find ways around these protections; but tracing back to the original variety is also now possible. It is important to protect the intellectual rights of the breeder—hence this important part of the Bill.
The consequence of this change is that the breeder of the initial variety has the right to prevent anyone from doing any of the acts in clause 6 in respect of the

essentially derived variety—in other words, he can prevent its commercial exploitation. The essentially derived variety may or may not be protected in its own right. If it is protected by a different person from the one with the initial variety, then the authorisation of both is required to enable it to be exploited. If it is not protected, authorisation is required only from the holder of rights in the initial variety.
This enables the breeder of a protected variety to obtain a fair return on his investment. Such investments are made over many years and yield an uncertain return. In practical terms, those working on a breeding programme that may result in an essentially derived variety can be expected to reach agreement on its commercialisation with the owner of the initial variety—otherwise, there would be little point in their work. This is not a matter on which the Government should take a stand; it is a matter for commercial negotiation between the people concerned, and they have the right to insist on such negotiations.
The 1991 convention also allows contracting states to restrict the breeder's right in respect of farm-saved seed, subject to safeguarding the legitimate interests of the breeder. Income from royalties is essential to encourage investment in UK plant breeding. Use of farm-saved seed without payment of royalty denies breeders income from their investment and restricts their ability to invest further in development.
Although the Bill exempts the use of farm-saved seed of the main agricultural crops from the breeder's right, it nevertheless balances this with a requirement on farmers to make payment to breeders when seed is farm saved. For non-experts like me, that means farmers taking the seed from a crop, saving it, and replanting it. Personally, I had never heard of farm-saved seed until recently—but it is an important element here. Several million pounds of investment are at stake.

Mr. Dalyell: I can sympathise with my hon. Friend. None of us is an expert in this area—it would take a professor of plant breeding studies to master it.
The briefing notes to clause 9 state that the 1991 convention
does not allow contracting parties to restrict the breeder's right in respect of varieties whose production requires the repeated use of protected variety".
I understand that there is some difficulty at law in defining the repeated use of protected variety. I do not expect the Minister to answer off the top of his head, but if he has access to legal advice, perhaps he can return to the subject later.

Mr. Rooker: I shall deal with my hon. Friend's point on clause stand part.

Mr. William Cash: Does the hon. Gentleman know that some people believe strongly that the Bill should be amended to make clause 9(6) apply only to varieties produced since 1 January 1992? Has the Minister received any representations about that; and what does he propose to do about it?

Mr. Rooker: The answer is yes. I shall come to the point later on, and we can discuss it in greater detail in the clause stand part debate.
A similar provision permitting farmers to use farm-saved seed without the breeder's prior permission is in the Community regime, and UK plant breeders have been collecting payment for the use of farm-saved seed of Community-protected varieties since last autumn.
Farmers will therefore be able to farm saved seed of varieties of these species for use on their own holdings without the breeder's authority. Unless they come into one of the exempt categories, though, they will be required to pay the breeder equitable remuneration which is sensibly lower than the royalty charged on certified seed of the same variety in the same area. Those points are clarified further in the legislation.
It is for breeders and farmers to negotiate what to charge for the use of farm-saved seed, taking account of the requirement that the charge must be sensibly lower than the royalty on certified seed. The Bill gives guidance on what is meant by sensibly lower by reference to the Community regime. But it does not put any figure on it, and the Government do not intend to intervene in what we believe are essentially commercial matters between breeders and farmers.
The requirement to pay for the use of farm-saved seed will apply to varieties protected under the 1964 Act, as well as new varieties that come into protection after the Bill comes into force.
Some farmers are exempt from the requirement to pay. There is a permanent exemption for small farmers as defined in the Community regime; it is referred to in the arable areas payments scheme. Furthermore, farmers who have saved seed of a particular variety before the Act comes into force may also continue to do so, free of charge, until Ministers discontinue this prior-use exemption by order. A similar prior-use exemption is in the Community regime. This expires on 30 June 2001, though the Council regulation makes it clear that that date is subject to review in the light of a report that the Commission is required to make before then, and may be extended on a variety, group or species basis, depending on the findings in the report.
We intend to discontinue the prior-use exemption at the same time as the corresponding provision in the Community regime is discontinued. I assure the House that that will not be before 30 June 2001, which means that the majority of farmers who have saved seed of older UK-protected varieties before this Bill comes into force may continue to do so free of charge until 30 June 2001 at least.
I have been impressed over the past couple of weeks to read about the approach that the breeders, farmers and seed processors adopted to the farm-saved seed issue when it was first broached for Community-protected varieties. I also commend the former Government: the legislation was their draft Bill. For years we pushed for it, when in opposition. We all gladly embrace the idea of draft Bills—as far as humanly possible, legislation should be presented, following White and Green Papers, in draft form to those outside. The approach to the Bill has been constructive throughout.
Clause 10 makes it clear that the breeder's right is exhausted once propagating material is disposed of by him or with his authority.
The rest of the Bill relates to general issues: the maintenance and naming of varieties, offences, compulsory licences, appeals to the Plant Varieties and Seeds Tribunal,

the work of the controller, and so on. Details are set out in the schedules. The Bill is technically complex, and its importance is not to be measured by the number of its clauses—any more than the importance of some Community legislation can be gauged from its length. About 80 per cent. of the Bill's contents are simply existing legislation, re-enacted and simplified, and designed to meet the UK's obligations under international conventions. I commend it to the House.

Mr. David Curry: The Minister rightly said that he is the Bill's godfather; it was a foundling in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he arrived there. I do not know whether he discovered it with great enthusiasm, but it is an important addition to British legislation which aligns us with international law and we do not intend to oppose it.
I suppose that I should declare an interest as a keen vegetable gardener. Whether saving a few examples of broad bean seed from one year to the next constitutes a punishable or taxable offence, I am not clear.
I realise that this subject may not be wholly redolent of the romance and mystery that affect some parts of MAFF. Some of the Minister's sentences resembled the chunks of prose that are dropped on the desks of unsuspecting third formers at Ripon grammar school with the instruction, "Punctuate." The Secretary of State for Education and Employment will no doubt incorporate such chunks into the national curriculum to teach children to read and write in the future.

Mr. Rooker: I simplified it.

Mr. Curry: If the Minister simplified his speech, one can only imagine what it was like before. I shall not take him up on his admission, but this could be described as a hybrid Bill. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) might become too agitated in his seat if he feels that we are breaching constitutional practice as well.

Mr. Dalyell: Such a thought had not occurred to me.

Mr. Curry: We support the principles of the Bill, which implements in UK law the international agreement on plant breeders' intellectual property. I shall therefore limit my remarks to exploring a particular area. The Minister covered it to a degree and will no doubt complete his clarification in the course of today's proceedings. It concerns farm-saved seed. In March last year, the National Farmers Union reached agreement with plant breeders on payment and terms and conditions, the key element of which was that, where a variety was used before the agreement, farmers were free to continue using it without payment. Our main concern is that the Bill should respect the agreement and not impede it or cast doubt on it.
Why does clause 9 empower Ministers to change the agreement by order? Under European Union legislation, no changes were envisaged in the royalty system until 2001, by which time the Commission may have formed a view. The UK legislation makes no reference to that date, although just before the Minister sat down he said with some precision that he would not act to bring that


agreement to an end until at least 2001. He has therefore given us the assurance that we sought, although I am not clear why the phraseology appeared in the Bill. Perhaps a civil servant was looking for an emergency fire escape in the event of a conflagration.

Mr. Rooker: No date appears in the Bill so that the date can be extended, not shortened. That is why I said at least 2001.

Mr. Curry: I am grateful to the Minister for that important clarification, which will be generally welcomed.
The second issue relates to clause 6, which empowers Ministers to prescribe by regulation additional factors to be taken into account. Will the Minister outline what he envisages in that respect when we discuss those clauses? We have tabled amendments that are designed to encourage him to explore that matter.
We need clarification of clause 6(2). I am familiar with the legislative use of the concept of "reasonableness". Indeed, braver men have spent much time in Committee trying to define its meaning. It would be useful to have clarification of the Government's intention in that regard.
We support the Bill and I do not intend to blather when there is no need to do so. I accept that all Ministers have speeches like that to deliver from time to time and I look forward to the clarifications that we seek. We shall not divide the House on this matter.

Mr. Norman Baker: May I place on record our slight concern that this important Bill is being rushed through, with all its stages being taken in one day? Our concern is shared by the National Farmers Union, which has made representations to me on that point. I know that the Government have a heavy legislative programme and want to get a lot done this Session, but the Bill should not be dealt with by a Committee of the House in one day. Neither is it as uncontroversial as the Minister implies. I accept that much of it re-enacts the 1964 Act, but things have moved on since then, with the advent of biotechnology. The Bill should reflect that change.
Perhaps when the new Government took office their civil servants whipped out this Bill saying, "Here is one that we prepared earlier," and assured Ministers that it was both uncontroversial and urgent. They probably said that it fulfilled our European obligations, would be no problem whatever, had been subject to consultation and needed an early slot in the parliamentary timetable. I understand that the Minister and his Department have been busy finding their feet. They have had to deal with the mess of BSE and proposals for the food standards agency, and have been busy with other matters, so I understand if the points that I shall make have not been considered by them.
I accept that, in many ways, the Bill is modest. Our concern does not necessarily lie with the Bill; the fact that it is the continuation of a process worries Liberal Democrats. I hope that Ministers will not feel obliged to defend every full stop and comma of the Bill but will be open to argument. I was pleased that the Minister responded to the point made by the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) a moment ago, as it was one which I intended to make.
The Bill has profound implications for the future of food production and the relationship between farmers and plant breeders. The Minister made much of the rights of breeders, but I heard little about the rights of farmers, which are of concern to Liberal Democrats. We have tabled a number of amendments following consultation with the National Farmers Union, the Soil Association, Greenpeace and others, and I hope that the Minister will respond positively. I hope that he might even be prepared to accept some of our amendments in a spirit of co-operation, or at least give an undertaking that the points that we raise today will be considered seriously once the Bill reaches the House of Lords.
As the Minister said, the Bill amends the Plant Varieties and Seeds Act 1964 and incorporates points from the international convention for the protection of new varieties of plants—UPOV 1991. The House in entitled to ask the wider question, whether the convention is in the public interest and the interests of farmers and consumers, as well as the narrower question of how its articles will be applied in the Bill. We have concerns about both. On the wider issue, few matters are more basic to society than the provision of a ready supply of wholesome food. Poor food supplies led to the creation of the common agricultural policy, and we are willing to spend millions of pounds each year in our determination never to run short of food again.
There has been much talk in the House and elsewhere about the need for Britain to retain its sovereignty. I take the word sovereignty to mean our ability to determine our own destiny and to have in place arrangements that prevent our being beholden, against our wishes, to external powers in whatever form. None the less, we are now faced with the problem that, within 10 years, five American biotechnology companies may control some 80 per cent. of our staples. Monsanto, the American giant, has predicted that, within a decade, genetically modified crops will be the norm in 80 per cent. of temperate regions. I prefer to say modified to engineered because engineering is a precise art and that is not what those companies indulge in.
The change represents a massive transfer of power away from British farmers and consumers to unaccountable transnational companies. Monsanto, the chemical company, has been active in getting a big stake in the seed business. Its boss, Robert Shapiro, is quoted in The Economist of 26 April 1997 as saying that he wants Monsanto to be the main provider of "agricultural biotechnology". By August 1995, his company was the world leader—I do not use the term in a flattering way—in securing biotech plant patents. On one estimate, again quoted in The Economist of 26 April 1997, the world market for genetically altered seeds will reach $7 billion by 2005, compared with only $450 million in 1995. It is interesting to note that Monsanto's share price rose from $14 at the beginning of 1995 to $39 by April 1997.
The seed business is big business, particularly for chemical companies which are increasingly buying up seed companies. This year alone, Monsanto has bought three seed breeding and marketing companies for more than £1 billion, and Rhone-Poulenc has merged with Merck MSDA to become the world's largest poultry, genetics and animal health business.
The Bill acts in some ways as a catalyst and facilitator for transnational companies such as Monsanto to exert unprecedented control over our agriculture. I do not believe that hon. Members on either side of the House want that.
I refer hon. Members to an excellent publication called "Future of our seeds" by Vandana Shiva, which lists on page 4 the way in which seed companies and chemical companies have converged. It also lists on page 17 the top 14 owners of biotechnology plant patents: 12 out of 14 are American, with only ICI Zeneca from this country getting a look-in. Monsanto comes top with 18 separate patents, as of August 1995. The author concludes:
Transnational companies will decide what is grown by farmers, what they use as inputs, and when they sell their produce, to whom and at what price.
If that is even partly true, it should be a matter of concern to hon. Members. If they doubt the truth of that, let us ask why transnational companies are spending billions of pounds investing in seed companies and why the stock market is responding by increasing their share value dramatically.
One of the main reasons for such investment is to produce genetically modified seed that is tied into the use of pesticides, so that farmers are obliged to buy those companies' products. Some pesticide patents—I am thinking of Roundup—are due to end shortly. How convenient it is for those companies to be able to patent seeds that are dependent on those pesticides, and so to give them a new lease of life.
Apart from concern about the transfer of power to unaccountable transnational companies, there are grave concerns about the environmental consequences of the fast move towards genetically modified crops. I note that in the preamble to the Bill, on page v, under the heading "Environmental impact", the words "There is none" appear. Had I been sitting on a chair at the time, I would have fallen off when I read that. That statement is incredible.
The Bill will lead inevitably to the production by transnational companies of seed varieties that may superficially bring benefits, but which could produce substantial long-term environmental problems. A comparison with nuclear power comes to mind. That was going to be clean and too cheap to meter—the best thing since sliced bread. It has turned out to be expensive and a proven danger to people and the environment on the occasions when the roulette wheel stops in the wrong place. I believe that that is a fair comparison to make with genetically modified crops.
I shall try to give the House some feel for the environmental dangers. First, there is the creation of a permanent reliance on pesticides, which at present are optional. Early this week, I asked the Minister of State what plans he had to encourage organic farming, and I was given a positive response by the Government that they are committed to that sector, as I am sure they are. However, the Bill helps to pull the rug from underneath the sector, not only by building in a reliance on pesticides, but by raising doubts that any farmer in the future will be able to guarantee that his crops are organic, when there is the possibility of migration in the air of material from a genetically modified crop in a neighbouring field, which might latch on to a similar crop nearby.
Secondly, there is the prospect that a modified crop might become a devastating weed, either by invading the countryside or by hybridising with another species to form

such a weed. Many of the traits that crop geneticists seek to engineer into their crops may increase the likelihood that they will survive as weeds. One need only think of animal species that were introduced into our country and which have changed the balance of the countryside significantly, such as the rabbit, the grey squirrel and the mink. Do we want to take huge gambles with new and unpredictable crop varieties which, once released into the environment, cannot be recalled?

Mr. John Hayes: Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that the trebling of yields—for example, of cereal crops—since the last war is at least 50 per cent. the result of the work of breeders? Is that not worth the efforts that he is decrying and disparaging? It is in the farmers' interests, as well as the breeders'.

Mr. Baker: I acknowledge that breeders have rights, and we seek not to take away those rights, but to modify them so that there is a balance between the right of the breeder and that of the farmer.

Mr. Boswell: Following the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes), does the hon. Gentleman accept that stringent safeguards on the release of genetic material to the environment are already in place and that those are designed to meet—and in my view substantially do meet—exactly the fears that he has expressed? Material is not loosely let out into the environment without proper consideration of the possible dangers, including any long-run dangers from genetic escape.

Mr. Baker: I do not accept that. I remember being a researcher in this place when the Environmental Protection Act 1990 was produced, and I know how little coverage was given to clauses relating to genetically engineered material. I am also aware that there is controversy over imported maize and the inability to separate maize that is genetically engineered from that which is not. I am not happy with that, and I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's point.
My third environmental concern is that there is a danger of increased pesticide residues in our food. Crops can be drenched with pesticides—perhaps they even need to be drenched with pesticides to grow under the genetically engineered arrangement. That increases the prospect of residues remaining on the finished product.
Fourthly, there is the danger of increased resistance in target insects on crops. At present, pesticides are applied in bursts, whereas an insect-killing gene in the plant will destroy susceptible insects daily. Constant exposure could lead insects to evolve resistance even more quickly than they already do.
Fifthly, there is the question of marker genes, which are attached to what might be called the genetic payload to be inserted to find out how quickly it has arrived at its destination. One popular type of marker, as the Minister will know, is the gene that makes plants resistant to antibiotics. Instead of waiting for the plants to grow, researchers can simply test them with the antibiotic. The direct concern is that genes conferring resistance to antibiotics might find their way into bacteria when the crops decay in the ground or in the stomach of animals. That must encourage a build-up in resistance to antibiotics, which is already a significant problem.
Sixthly, there is the possibility of unwanted reactions in health terms from eating genetically altered material. Already there has been the case of one type of soya bean that has had to be abandoned because the inclusion of a gene from the Brazil nut generated in some people the same allergic reaction as comes from eating Brazil nuts themselves.
There is the further objection that the private ownership of genetic material which is encouraged by the Bill is, in my view, ethically questionable. We are increasingly moving towards a patenting of life in all its forms, which I find profoundly worrying.
Such private ownership exacerbates the gap between the rich north and the poor south. We heard from the Prime Minister today and from the Secretary of State for International Development on a previous occasion that the Government are keen to close that gap. I believe them, but the Bill will not help. The resources are predominantly in the south, whereas the technology is in the north. The north therefore wants to claim the south's resources as common goods, but to charge the south for the modified result.
Biotechnology developments promote the move of genetic resources from goods that are freely available to all into goods that are privately owned. Some hon. Members may feel that the risks and objections that I have outlined are overstated, but if only one or two of them are justified, that merits concern. I have listed several objections. If only one or two are worth while, that is a matter of concern.
These concerns are held not only on the Liberal Democrat Benches. There has been much greater public debate about these matters in other European countries. Governments in Italy, Austria and Luxembourg have banned their farmers from growing genetically modified maize. The European Parliament recently demanded a halt to the sale of such maize throughout the European Union, pending further investigations into its safety. In April, 1 million Austrians signed a petition calling for a total ban on genetically altered foods.
Hon. Members will know that in Britain the NFU has expressed concerns about genetically altered crops in some respects and about key aspects of the Bill. The amendments tabled by the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon emanate from the NFU and have Liberal Democrat support.
Particular concern has been expressed by the National Farmers Union for Scotland. Scottish farmers tend to grow older varieties of wheat, barley and potatoes as newer plant varieties often produce inferior crops under Scottish growing conditions. At present, farmers are exempt from payments on older plant varieties, but the Bill puts at risk the agreement reached on exempted varieties that were granted protection prior to 27 April 1991. Will the Minister address that specific point when he responds to the debate?

Mr. Dalyell: I represent a potato growing area in Scotland. Will the hon. Gentleman explain to the House the problem to which he refers?

Mr. Baker: I refer the hon. Gentleman to a letter from the Scottish branch of the NFU, of which I am happy to

give him a copy. It points out that crop varieties currently available to Scottish farmers that pre-date 1991 do not incur any extra payments to plant breeders. However, the Bill may introduce retrospective charges.
English farmers are also unhappy with the Bill. I have received a letter from a Kent farmer, who states:
The main proposal under this Bill is to enable the cartel of international seed producers to levy a sum on all farm saved seed. At a time when it is Government policy to promote free enterprise and let market forces prevail it is the exact opposite of this.
The Minister may dispute that point, but that view is shared throughout the farming community.

Mr. Hayes: Would the hon. Gentleman care to comment on the studies and the research that suggest that the incidence of disease in farm-saved seed is greater than that in certified seed? That must concern him, given his anxiety about the health risks associated with seed and plant varieties.

Mr. Baker: I was not aware of that problem, but it is clearly an important point. However, the answer does not necessarily involve handing over power to transnational companies that will deal with the matter differently.
I sympathise with the points made by the farmer from Kent and I do not believe that the Bill is entirely good for farmers. We must strike a balance between the legitimate interests of seed producers and those of farmers and consumers. We are not trying to say that plant breeders have no rights and do not make an important contribution to agriculture—we recognise their valuable contribution—but we recognise that farmers and consumers have rights also. The regime presented in the Bill is based on the Plant Varieties and Seeds Act 1964, which was enacted long before genetically modified organisms had been heard of and reduces further the freedom of farmers in law in respect of saved seed. That freedom has already been eroded by technological advances that make them more dependent on chemical giants than is healthy.
It seems to me that the plant breeders have got everything they want from the Bill. For example, why is the Minister willing in clause 4 to countenance transnationals' claiming ownership of plants that occur naturally? The Prime Minister was able to amend one clause IV, so perhaps the Minister could help on this occasion. The Minister has explained why the Bill goes beyond the requirements of EU regulations. Why does clause 11 give the Minister the power to extend the duration of plant breeders' rights beyond 30 years? These and other questions must be answered, and I look forward to hearing the Minister's response when the amendments are debated.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, you will have gathered that my colleagues and I have considerable reservations about the increasing powers of transnational companies and the detrimental effects that their acquisition of seed companies and their billions of pounds of investment in biotechnology may have on our farmers and consumers. We accept that EU regulation must be reflected in domestic legislation, but we remain very unhappy about where the legislation is leading. We do not believe that


sufficient weight has been given to the dangers and the downsides associated with the move towards genetically altered crops that the Bill effectively endorses.

Mr. Andrew Lansley: I thought that it was Liberal Democrat policy to see European directives and regulations transferred directly into United Kingdom law.

Mr. Baker: The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon drew attention to an attempt to go further than the European regulation, and the Minister has clarified that point. We accept that EU regulation must be reflected in domestic legislation, but that does not necessarily mean that we agree with every decision that comes out of Europe.
We are concerned about the Bill which, in its present form, is not in the interests of our farmers and consumers. It is important to draw the attention of the House to our impending concerns about biotechnology and the way in which it is developing. Those developments must be reflected sensibly in legislation, and Ministers must address those issues carefully. For those reasons, we shall oppose the Bill's Second Reading.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: I thank the Minister for bringing forward the legislation urgently. It is extremely important in terms of our international obligations. I see the former Minister of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) nodding, and I think that all hon. Members would agree that we owe it to other countries to act swiftly in ratifying agreements. Perhaps the Minister could explain to the House the great difficulties that we would have faced if the legislation had not been introduced before the summer recess.
The problem is that genes are no respecters of borders. When the European Union decided earlier this year to admit imports of American maize that had been genetically engineered for resistance to insects, the European consumer affairs commissioner, Emma Bonino, admitted concern that the decision had been taken "under conomic pressure". The silos of Antwerp and Lorient were already bursting with produce when Washington threatened a trade war.
The previous Government set up the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes—an independent body of experts chaired by Derek Burke, former chancellor of the university of East Anglia—to assess the safety of genetically modified foods. The ACNFP compares those foods with their conventional equivalents using analytical and toxicological tests. That procedure was endorsed by the World Health Organisation.
Processed products of the genetically modified maize, which is resistant to the European corn borer and tolerant to the herbicide glufosinate-ammonium, were tested in precisely that way. The ACNFP compared the modified maize with conventional maize and concluded that the products were toxicologically and nutritionally equivalent. The EU directive on novel foods and ingredients came into force in May this year. The regulation is designed to establish a Europe-wide system for approving any such foods before they reach the market. It covers foodstuffs that contain, or have been produced from, genetically

modified organisms. Their safety will be assessed using the ACNFP's established procedure. Under the regulation, foods that pass the safety test and go on sale will have to be clearly labelled.
As the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) said, Luxembourg and Austria have recently imposed their own bans on genetically modified maize. Some people with farming interests in Britain would like to do the same.
First, what is the Government's reaction to that proposal, given the pressure from America? Our trade relationship with the United States is very delicate and Governments are unwilling to override existing arrangements. However, it is a vital matter of principle and perhaps it is time to make an interim statement.
Secondly, we must ask whether we are rapidly losing the genetic diversity of our crops. That is a highly charged issue in a constituency such as Linlithgow where potatoes are the staple crop. It is even more important in East Lothian, which is famous for its seed potatoes.
There is the problem of whether we are leaving our crops too prone to pest and plague. The former Minister with responsibility for agriculture in Scotland, Lord Lindsay, thought that the position was perhaps misleading on the potato situation and blight—this is blight phytophthora infestans, which rots the crop. Agriculturalists accept that the genetic diversity of blight strains has increased with the appearance of the A2 strain of phytophthora infestans in Europe and north America, and that it is more aggressive in causing disease.
Greater freedom of trade and increased imports over the past 20 years have contributed to a significant increase in the number of blight strains, from one to about 15 in the United States. There have been alarming blight outbreaks in the US and Canada, but that alarm is partly a result of the new, aggressive strains producing blight disease where there was none before.
The situation was not helped by growers and agronomists lacking practical experience of controlling the disease over about the past 25 years. The north American authorities apparently did not give sufficiently high priority to breeding late-blight resistance into potato cultivars, and this has exposed commercial crop production to the disease. The strain P infestans US-8 has proved a major problem in parts of New England, but there is little evidence that it is more pathogenic than other strains.
Agriculture experts in Britain believe that the US-8 strain can be controlled by blight fungicides, provided that they are applied accurately and at the right time. There is no evidence that US-8 is resistant to the range of new fungicides now available.
Internationally, farmers have responded vigorously to the challenge posed by the new blight populations, and are investing effort and resources on a number of fronts. I am told that a number of international initiatives are being developed through the international programme for potato late-blight control in Mexico. The International Potato Centre in Lima, Peru, is co-ordinating a global initiative to combat the disease.
Central to a strategy for blight control is the need to increase the level of resistance in new varieties of potato that are now being developed. As I have said, I have moved on to my second question. I wish to know exactly what is being done to prevent a tragedy over the level of resistance, and when I talk of tragedy, I speak with considerable constituency feeling.
Tens of thousands of my constituents are the descendants of those who came from Ireland during the 1840s and 1850s as a result of potato blight. Bearing that in mind, the idea that blight could occur again is appalling. The Bill is supposedly non-political, and so may it be, but when one thinks of the political and demographic consequences of the potato blight in Ireland in the middle of the previous century, one shudders at the thought that it could ever happen again. That is precisely the issue that we are discussing.
I do not want to rabbit on for too long, but I have a third and final question. It concerns very much the same matter that was raised properly by the hon. Member for Lewes. The issue relates to Monsanto and genetically modified seeds.
When I receive a briefing, I believe in making it clear to the House from whom I have received it. A series of questions has been asked of me by Dr. Tom Craig from Hyde in Cheshire, who is most concerned about the news that 60,000 bags of oilseed containing the "wrong genes" had been let loose by Monsanto in Canada. Dr. Craig quotes the "St. Louis Post-Dispatch", which states that Monsanto, which is based in St. Louis—it is a chemical and biotechnology giant—last month announced that it had recalled "small quantities" of a genetically engineered canola seed containing an unapproved gene that had got into the product by mistake.
The briefing continues to explain that the recalled canola seed was "Roundup ready", meaning that it had been genetically engineered to withstand dousing with Monsanto's herbicide, glyphosate, which is marketed under the trade name Roundup.
The presence of the unapproved canola gene in a commercial product revealed at a minimum that Monsanto's quality assurance programmes failed in that instance and that the biotechnology regulatory system in Canada is ineffective. The regulatory system in the US is more lax than in Canada, but what is our regulatory system like? Are we better than the Canadians?
None of us can pretend to be anything like perfect and so we cannot ask for a perfect system, especially in this instance when we are talking about very difficult matters. However, my hon. Friend the Minister comes to the Chamber with a fresh mind, and I ask for an assurance that the extremely important and pressing issues that have been raised are being tackled.

Mr. Tim Collins: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for letting me catch your eye and make my maiden speech. I understand that it is the tradition in a maiden speech to pay tribute to one's predecessor, to say a few a few words about the constituency, to make a brief reference to the subject of the debate and then to sit down quickly before taxing too much the indulgence of the House. That is exactly what I shall do. I do so most willingly in paying a tribute to my predecessor, Michael Jopling, now happily transferred—since last week—to another place as Lord Jopling.
Michael Jopling became the Member for what was then the constituency of Westmorland back in 1964. He carried on serving for the subsequent constituency of Westmorland

and Lonsdale, following boundary changes that were implemented in 1983. Michael is well known to the House and much liked by hon. Members. He is enormously admired in what was his constituency as a diligent, able and effective representative of his constituents' interests. He first became a Member at my age of 33. As he is now 66, right hon. and hon. Members will understand that he spent precisely half of his life to date representing people in Westmorland and Lonsdale, and did so extremely ably.
On the national scene, Michael Jopling was the Government Chief Whip during Lady Thatcher's first term in office between 1979 and 1983. He played a critical role then in holding together a fractious Conservative party and in contributing significantly to the success of what I believe was an extremely effective, important and revolutionary time in British politics.
Subsequently, Michael served as an effective and long-serving Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in the 1980s. More recently, in the present decade, he played a role in the Jopling reforms, which I think have won widespread acceptance and, indeed, enthusiasm among right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House, in that they introduced civilisation to the working hours of this place.
I think that the impish sense of humour and sense of style that is characteristic of Michael Jopling was summed up by an incident that occurred when he was Minister of Agriculture. He was due to arrive at a significant agriculture show—I believe that it was in the north of England—and, at the time when the Minister was due to appear, there appeared instead a large, leather-clad gentleman on a powerful motor cycle. That produced enormous consternation among the various officials, who instructed this gentleman to depart forthwith because a Cabinet Minister was due to arrive. At that, the gentleman on the motor cycle removed his crash helmet, said that he was the Minister of Agriculture, Michael Jopling, and would they please get out of his way.
To steal one of Michael's better lines, I tell the House of what he said following a crash, which I know many right hon. and hon. Members are aware that he suffered earlier in the year. Thankfully, he has wholly recovered from it. He said that he was grateful that his translation to another place had occurred after he had had his crash and not before. He explained that if he had been translated to another place before the crash, he would not have been sure that the hospital would have sufficient quantities of blue blood.
It is a truism in the House that every hon. Member, when making a maiden speech, claims that theirs is the most beautiful constituency in the country. I am unique in that a number of hon. Members have said to me, perhaps in the spirit of some enviousness, that they, too, believe that mine is the most beautiful constituency in the country. The Minister was there yesterday. I hope that he enjoyed his visit, and that he was not subject to the traditional lakeland rain greeting.

Mr. Rooker: No, I was not.

Mr. Collins: I am glad to hear it. However, given the damp atmosphere up there, the considerations about global warming to which the Prime Minister referred earlier do not always commend themselves to people in my constituency with the seriousness that they do to those elsewhere.
Westmorland and Lonsdale contains some of the most breathtakingly beautiful countryside in the whole of the United Kingdom. It is geographically at the heart of the United Kingdom, as it falls north-south half way between John o'Groats and Land's End and east-west half way between the west coast of Northern Ireland and the east coast of England. It comprises beautiful lakes, such as Windermere and Coniston, and it includes glorious towns such as Grasmere, Ambleside and the lovely and splendid Kendal, where my home is. The Lonsdale part of the constituency comprises what historically was part of north Lancashire, the area around Cark and Cartmel and Grange-over-Sands, and stretches into the east to include areas of the Yorkshire dales around Sedbergh. Given that it includes parts of historic Lancashire and Yorkshire, hon. Members will understand that it is not clever for its Member of Parliament to express an opinion about the outcome of the Wars of the Roses, or to debate the relative merits of the test cricketers Michael Atherton and Geoff Boycott. I admire both of them, and am careful to admire both of them at all times.
Hon. Members will forgive me if I touch briefly on five matters that are of enormous importance to my constituency and constituents. The first is that Cumbria as a whole, and south Cumbria in particular, should remain part of the north-west for all regional government and regional development purposes. That is where our links are with regard to health, education, transport and other matters. I was delighted that, when the Deputy Prime Minister visited Windermere in my constituency, he said that there were no immediate plans to change the boundaries of regional government. I shall seek to hold him to that pledge.
Secondly, the Government announced a road review last week. The Cumbria-Barrow bypass is one of the projects that will be subject to an accelerated review. The High Newton widening of the A590 is of enormous significance to my constituents, not merely because of its economic importance to the whole of Cumbria, but on safety grounds. As Michael Jopling used to point out, Westmorland and Lonsdale is perhaps the only constituency where an enormously busy, dual carriageway A-road passes through a farmyard. That is quite dangerous and needs to be upgraded with some speed.
Thirdly, the vexed issue of a speed limit on Windermere is before the courts. I hope that a decision will be taken in accordance with the wishes of local people, and that it will not be taken by people sitting a long way away. I shall be writing to the Deputy Prime Minister on that matter.
Fourthly, it is important that tourism, which provides about a third of the employment in our area, should be promoted effectively and vigorously.
Fifthly and finally, it is important, as the Minister will know—I am sure that he discussed this yesterday—that small farms in general and hill farms in particular are looked after. When the Minister considers the review and reform of the common agricultural policy, he can expect strong representations from me on the importance of maintaining and expanding hill livestock compensatory allowances.
As for the Bill, I share the views that have been expressed by many right hon. and hon. Members, who have spoken about its importance and about the need for

the United Kingdom to proceed rapidly towards ratifying the international conventions to which we have subscribed.
I shall make two specific points that the Minister may have time to respond to later. Under paragraph (2) of schedule 1, Ministers are given a general power to give the controller virtually any remuneration or allowances that they deem fit. I do not expect the Minister to specify the precise salary that he intends to allocate to a specific civil servant, but could he give us the banding or the grade level at which the controller will be paid? Will there be any change as a result of the Bill to the way in which the controller is paid? Will there be any element of performance-related pay and, if so, how will performance be assessed?
From a cursory reading of clause 9(7), it seems that Ministers will be able to instruct farmers to hand over information to plant breeders at the will of plant breeders. Farmers are concerned about the existing burdens of bureaucracy that are placed on them, and I should be grateful if the Minister would tell us how those powers will be exercised with a view to minimising the additional burdens that farmers face. They are interested in growing things and making money for themselves and their country; they are not interested in filling in forms.
On my arrival in the House two things surprised me. First, I was greeted by a hard-working and popular member of the House of Commons staff with the words, "Good heavens, what are you doing here?" That was not perhaps the most auspicious of beginnings. It became even less auspicious when he went on to say, "Don't you realise that you should be at Church house, where the Prime Minister is about to address you?" I explained to him that some new Members of Parliament were on the Conservative Benches rather than the Labour Benches.
The second thing pleasantly surprised me. As some hon. Members will know, my first days here were overshadowed by the tragic and sudden death of my father in a freak accident. In that time of family sorrow, I was pleased to receive messages of condolence not only from Conservative Members but from a number of Labour Members, for which I am very grateful. In particular, I want to single out the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen), who sent me a kind personal message. I was also touched to receive a message from Mr. Alastair Campbell at 10 Downing street, a man with whom I have crossed swords before and will no doubt do so again. He was also kind enough to send me a message of condolence on the death of my father.
The lesson that I learnt in that time of personal sadness was that there will and should always be important partisan differences between the two parties, but none the less human emotion and common feeling on occasions transcend those differences. I shall certainly bear that in mind for the future, and I am very grateful for those kind messages.

Mr. David Kidney: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins). His maiden speech was amusing and informed. His constituency does not need to be described to those of us who have visited the area: it is the most delightful part of the country. He paid due tribute to his predecessor, now Lord Jopling, whose name is


particularly apposite to the debate, given that he was previously responsible for agriculture. His name is also relevant to the modernisation of our procedures that is currently being considered by a Select Committee. The hon. Gentleman's contribution was measured and astute, and I am sure that in future debates he will be listened to with interest and he will inform our deliberations.
I shall immediately leap to the Minister's defence. He is piloting the Bill through the House against the criticisms made by the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) and the comments about food safety made by my much more senior hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). In fairness to the Minister, he is not seeking to introduce a food safety measure. This is a measure to protect what is sometimes curiously described as intellectual property: the rights of breeders to a fair return on their research and development.
That said, although I would not go as far as the hon. Member for Lewes in complaining and worrying that the Bill is going through the House too speedily, I am puzzled about that speed. The history of this matter is that the public consultation was a letter to interested parties in February 1997. The publication of the Bill was taken over by the election campaign. We knew about the timetable last week, and I am told that there is no proper briefing about the Bill in the Library: there is only a letter by a researcher that refers to there having been no public response to the publication of the Bill, which is perhaps not surprising, given the history that I have just recounted. It is rather strange that we are speeding through the Bill so early in the Session and giving it such high priority. The 1991 international convention superseded the defence of breeders' rights to their royalties contained in the 1964 Act. The European Commission scheme is already up and running. British breeders feel obliged to register under that scheme, which causes them additional expense. I join others in cautioning against the speed with which we are proceeding to catch up.
My concern is about the royalties that will be received by breeders on farm-saved seeds that are currently free of royalties. As the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) said, under the European Commission scheme, farm-saved seeds that were free of royalties before the scheme came into force will remain so until 30 June 2001 at the earliest. If I understood my hon. Friend the Minister correctly, he gave a similar assurance in respect of farm-saved seeds in Britain.
Therefore, what is the rush today? I dusted off my copy of the Labour party manifesto to see whether the Bill was one of our promised early measures. Alas, I found no mention of plant varieties among our promises on health, education, law and order, welfare to work or youth unemployment. In fact, the word plant does not appear, although there is an allusion to the work of Professor Plant on voting procedures at future elections. Nor does the word varieties appear, although the farce of the previous Conservative Government could be described as a variety act.

Mr. Boswell: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman remembers that our former colleague, Sir Julian Critchley, wrote a book called "The Palace of Varieties", which I commend to him.

Mr. Kidney: That is most helpful, although "The Palace of Varieties" does not appear in the Labour manifesto. Nor does the word royalties, although there is a promise that there will be no changes to the monarchy.
Clause 9 deals with farm-saved seed. The hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) has clearly received the same communication as I have from the National Association of Agricultural Contractors, expressing concern about how the United Kingdom scheme will mirror the European Commission scheme. It states that under the European scheme, the negotiations that were concluded last year included the promise that varieties that were in use when the 1991 convention came into force and were free of royalties will remain so for ever, not just until 2001.
In his reply to the debate, will my hon. Friend say whether that is his understanding of the agreement and whether the United Kingdom scheme will contain the same arrangement? The national association referred to Riband and Hereward, which I understand are varieties of wheat.
The British Society of Plant Breeders want all farm-saved seeds to be subject to royalty, so there is a difference between the two organisations. The hon. Member for Lewes mentioned that the Minister must strike a balance between the interests of the breeders and those of the farmers. The stated intention is to bring the United Kingdom scheme into line with the European Commission scheme. If some of the older farm-saved seeds will be free of royalties for ever under the European scheme, will my hon. Friend the Minister give the assurance that the same will apply under the United Kingdom scheme?
The importance of the issue is demonstrated by the length of the compliance cost assessment which is available from the Library. Clearly, for breeders the issue is that they should not lose out on a fair return for their research and development work, and for farmers it is that their costs should not increase too greatly as a result of the Bill. The compliance cost assessment shows that farmers' costs will rise.
Will my hon. Friend confirm two points when he replies to the debate? Perhaps if I put them in a memorable way he will remember to deal with them, so I ask him this:

When farm saved-seed is royalty bearing,
When the deed is finally done,
How then will older seeds be faring
And will it be from July 2001?

Mr. Andrew Lansley: It was a particular pleasure to hear the maiden speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins). I had the privilege to be a colleague of his for some years elsewhere and I know that it was the first of many significant and important contributions that he will make in the House and that many hon. Members look forward to hearing him in future.
As the Minister explained, the Bill enables the United Kingdom to implement the 1991 international convention for the protection of new varieties of plants. I believe that, for that reason, it will generally be regarded as a useful reform.
Within my constituency of South Cambridgeshire, I represent not only many excellent farmers, but Plant Breeding International at Trumpington. PBI in its current status was created in 1987 when Unilever acquired from


the Government the plant breeding and applied scientific resources of the Plant Breeding Institute and the National Seed Development Organisation.
It may be helpful to hon. Members to know that PBI is the leading plant breeding company in the United Kingdom. It is dominant in respect of winter wheat, bean and oat and winter and spring malting barley. It has a high share of potato seed in the United Kingdom and a significant presence in the breeding of new oilseed rape varieties.
A single successful plant variety can take between eight and 20 years to develop and involves the screening of millions of varieties. The success and economic significance of this activity can be illustrated by the development over recent decades of bread-making wheats. In the 1950s, the average white loaf in the United Kingdom contained only 20 per cent. home-grown grain. With Avalon in 1980, Mercia in 1986 and Hereward in 1991—which the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) mentioned—PBI continuously improved the yield, quality and agronomic characteristics of United Kingdom wheat varieties.
Today, in a year favourable climatically to cereal production, the United Kingdom white loaf is almost entirely home produced. That progress is not necessarily the result of genetic modification, but of the successful application of selective breeding.
That brings me to the points that were made by the hon. Member for Lewes. It seems to me that there are two problems with what he suggested. First, proving a negative and trying to demonstrate that there are no health or other hazards associated with genetically modified food will be a difficult process. Secondly, and more importantly in the context of today's debate, I do not share his view that the points that he raised are relevant to our consideration of the Bill. The purpose of the Bill is not to determine whether genetically modified foods should be brought into use in Britain, but to make sure that when seeds and varieties are brought into use there is proper recompense to the holders of the rights and intellectual property vested in their development.

Mr. Baker: The point I wanted to make was that the Bill facilitates the work of plant breeders who want to develop genetically engineered crops and makes it more difficult for others to oppose them. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that where there is doubt, the precautionary principle should apply and if we are not sure whether something is safe, we ought not to allow it?

Mr. Lansley: The precautionary principle has to be judged in the context of the balance of the evidence and the best scientific evidence available at the time. It seems to me that we should not remove or obstruct the proper return for the intellectual property vested in the development of seeds and varieties that are brought into use and tamper with the Bill in order to achieve some objective relating to genetically modified foods. Those issues are developing all the time and if they are to be tackled by legislation, they should be tackled separately instead of being used to obstruct an important and valuable Bill.
More than 200 staff are employed by the PBI on breeding research and analytical work, and 80 per cent. of its income stream derives from royalties. Therefore, it is

essential that we strive to give adequate protection to the intellectual property vested in the product of research and development. That is a general principle to which we should hold, but it should not be extended to allow excessive returns to the holder of rights through monopolistic exploitation. A balance must be struck. In the past, the balance was not right. The use of farm-saved seed without payment of a royalty for the rights of the original propagating material failed to give proper recompense to the owner of the rights, failed to provide the resources from which new development has to spring and gave a perverse incentive not to switch to improved varieties.
That the farm-saved seed should carry a lower royalty than certified seed is a necessary part of striking the balance. Another part of the balance must be a power for the controller of plant variety rights to issue a compulsory licence. I am aware that the National Farmers Union regards as ineffective the provisions derived from the Plant Varieties and Seeds Act 1964 and carried into the Bill. The Bill essentially re-enacts those provisions with some clarification. The power proposed in the Bill seems to me to be sufficient for the purpose and, if the NFU were to take up specific issues with the controller, that might be the best way to demonstrate any mischief that can be remedied.
While the provisions on farm-saved seed are intended to be dealt with by order, it would have been clearer if the transition by autumn 2001 had been on the face of the Bill. I hope that the Minister, when he replies, will further reinforce the Government's intention that all protected varieties should be eligible for remuneration on farm-saved seed from autumn 2001. I listened carefully to the Minister's responses to earlier questions, and it is important that remuneration should not be provided before 30 June 2001. The holders of plant-breeding rights should also be aware that the decision will not be unduly prolonged beyond that point.
It has been raised with the Ministry separately that the provisions in clause 13 for remedies for infringement do not specify whether action can be taken when a farmer fails in his obligation to pay equitable remuneration on farm-saved seed. The holder will not be able to sue him for infringement of plant variety rights. The Bill could reflect the provisions in the European regulation, articles 17 and 18. I should be grateful if the Minister could say whether the present provision, in its reference to infringements of other proprietary rights, is sufficient for that purpose.
On the question of penalties, the Minister will be aware that, in some circumstances, the holders of seeds sell original seeds through local markets. Sometimes that happens inadvertently, but some offenders are persistent. The penalty for such infringement is £1,000, but representations have been made to me that the penalties could and should be higher. I should be grateful for the Minister's view on that point. Subject to those points, I welcome the Bill as a helpful step in providing a framework of proprietary rights to an industry that is increasingly important in ensuring that food production meets the economic, environmental and quality demands of the market place.

Mr. Colin Breed: I am grateful for the opportunity to make the second maiden speech today. I was surprised that another hon. Member was


making a maiden speech on this subject, but I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) on his speech. I share with him the delight of representing an area of outstanding natural beauty, although I do not wish to debate the relative merits of our constituencies. South-east Cornwall, like the rest of Cornwall, and like Westmorland, is a beautiful area.
My constituency covers the part of Cornwall that is just over the border from England, marked by the River Tamar. It is a largely rural area, and this debate has great significance to the agricultural community. My constituency is mostly countryside and moorland, but it also has long stretches of coastline and river. The fishing community in Looe has been much exercised recently by the fisheries debate.
Like much of Cornwall, south-east Cornwall has suffered recently from the rundown of Her Majesty's dockyard in Devonport. The unemployment generated by the lack of employment opportunities in the dockyard has hit south-east Cornwall hard, and we have some of the highest unemployment rates and lowest wages in the country.
I have pleasure in paying tribute to my predecessor, Sir Robert Hicks, who was a Member much admired and respected on both sides of the House and in the constituency. He held the seat for some 27 years, with the exception of a six-month interregnum in 1974, when the seat was held by my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler). That six-month period is a record for brevity in representing the seat, and I firmly hope to leave that record intact. Sir Robert was a popular constituency Member, and I know that the House will join me in wishing him and Lady Hicks a long, happy and healthy retirement.
Plant diversification is extremely important to the future of south-east Cornwall and, indeed, the planet. New varieties are being encouraged in several ways—including through genetic manipulation, as we have heard—but we must not let the prime cultivars become extinct. The rush to produce new varieties could bring the extinction of many existing varieties that may be considered uneconomic.
I am delighted to remind the House of the recent award of nearly £40 million of millennium and lottery money for the creation of the Eden Botanical Institute, to be constructed near St. Blazey in my constituency. The institute will be the first major foundation to be based on the principles of the Rio convention, about which we have all learnt more recently.
The institute's living plant and seed collection will give pleasure to millions of visitors and will present to the public the central concerns of land use, including the stewardship of nature and the associated conservation of habitat and species. In short, it will ensure that variety is maintained and that sensible diversification is undertaken for the future. The institute will demonstrate the need to produce food economically, as valuable crops, to sustain the world's population, and will ensure that plant variety is an important factor.
That will not mean a diminution of plant varieties, or a concentration on varieties produced by genetically modified organisms. It will ensure that the old seeds and old plants will continue, because therein lies the possibility of future genetic material.
The institute will strive to bring together those who work for real conservation of both wild and primitive cultivars, and for economic crop production. An effective resolution of those often conflicting interests needs to be sought.
Plant variety and diversification will be at the heart of the scientific endeavour in the Eden institute. The institute is only just completing its planning stage, but I believe that, when it is finished, it will provide a considerable resource for conservation projects, not only nationally but internationally.
The institute offers not only this country but the world the opportunity to restore and maintain the old plants, rather than rushing to new varieties simply for economic purposes. In the years to come, we may well value its work. We may find, for example, that some of the new varieties now being produced, which will be given licences and which will be paid for by farmers, do not provide quite the value that we now believe they will.
I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to contribute to the debate and to raise the exciting subject of the Eden institute. The institute will provide a welcome boost for the local economy and, we hope will be a major visitor attraction of great interest to everyone. Above all, it will make a contribution to conservation studies that will make it a national centre of excellence, vital for plant diversification and variety in the future.

Mr. Tim Boswell: I first pay tribute to the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed), who has just made his maiden speech and introduced his lovely constituency and its interesting developments. He also paid a gracious tribute to our old friend Sir Robert Hicks.
I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) for his elegant maiden speech, and especially for his warm praise of Michael Jopling, with whom I, too, had the privilege of working in the 1980s, when he was Minister of Agriculture. He is held in great affection in the House.
I welcome my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) and my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) to their new duties on the Opposition Front Bench. I also welcome the Minister of State, with whom we have already had exchanges in the House.
I make it clear at the outset that I have no problem with the Bill, and do not seek to detain the House. The debate is something of a valediction to matters agricultural for me, as I leave my Front-Bench responsibilities for that subject in order—to coin a phrase—to spend more time with the tax system.
I shall give the House three reasons for my taking part in the debate. First, I admit that, at the tender age of about 12, fired with enthusiasm by a lively father who was a farmer with a strong technical interest, and was prepared to take his son at an early age to the National Institute of Agricultural Botany and other such places, I developed the ambition to be a plant breeder—an ambition which I never succeeded in fulfilling.
My second reason for involving myself briefly in the debate is that, until a month or two ago, I had ministerial responsibility for its subject matter, and I should like to


pay tribute to the officials who worked for me, as they now do for the Minister. He is excellently served in that respect.
Thirdly, this is the appropriate moment to declare an interest. As is recorded in the Register of Members' Interests, I am a farmer, so I have a personal interest in the debate. More to the point, I grow Riband, which the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) mentioned. Even more to the point, I save my own seed, as I always have an eye to economy. That interest has not yet been introduced, wide though the debate has ranged. I have the seed treated by the chairman of the negotiating committee of the National Association of Agricultural Contractors, my near neighbour and good friend, Tim Rogers, who looks after it for me.
I wish to record my appreciation of the wisdom of our predecessors, who in 1964—I make no party point—legislated for the first time to protect plant varieties. I remember that, at that time, there was concern that yields of cereals, in particular, had reached a plateau.
We had made advances after the war, as we moved from Squarehead's Master and the other old varieties. For one awful moment, I thought that the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall intended to make the growing of Squarehead's Master or Little Joss compulsory. But he did not go quite that far.
We have now moved on to the Bersée and the Cappelle. Both are French, incidentally. None the less, in 1964 we had a British regime for the first time. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) said, it takes time to build up a breeding programme, but, as a result of that regime, we intensified and diversified the nature of plant breeding—especially, but not exclusively, cereal breeding—in this country.
From that time on, we started a rapid expansion in the results of British agriculture and became one of the world leaders in plant breeding. Between the 1960s and the 1980s, roughly, we were adding about 2 per cent. annually to cereal yields. In due course, that caused trouble for the European common agricultural policy.
Leaving that aside, however, if one is using land, it must be right to use it effectively. There was a 2 per cent. annual increase in yield, about half of which was directly attributable to modern varieties. I argue that those varieties would not have become available without the royalty regime introduced in 1964.
The yield improvements continued—but there was also an important technical development, which leads me on to some of the other comments that I want to make. Superimposed on the yield improvements of the 1980s was an increasing emphasis, both by breeders and in the analysis of breeding by institutions such as the National Institute of Agricultural Botany, on resistance to disease and on balancing the mix of varieties and offerings, so that they were both safer to grow and more appropriate for the market.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) was worried about genetically modified materials. It is almost 25 years since a particular variety, Rothwell Purdix, became the dominant United Kingdom wheat variety. It had single-gene resistance to yellow rust, and the whole variety was completely destroyed in one season.
This year, it happens that we have another yellow rust outbreak, and one or two of the major varieties now grown in this country, such as Brigadier, seem to be rather

susceptible. However, as a result of diversification of variety, plus chemical protection where appropriate, especially on the more susceptible varieties, the situation has been contained this year—in my judgment, at least.
All is by no means gloom and doom. British cereal breeding can hold its head up. It has diversified from simple pursuit of high yields to a much more varied and appropriate offering for modern conditions, and continues to improve under the present regime.
The Bill will reinforce that regime, bring it up to date and extend it. That is why I welcome it, and I should like to touch on three features that have been brought out in the debate, two of which arose initially from the speech by the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker).
The first is internationalisation. I regard that as broadly a positive factor and, until today, I had thought that the Liberal Democrats tended to take the same view. The legislation is implementing an international as well as a European obligation, and I welcome that.
We certainly cannot run away from the rest of the world and its breeding programmes to conduct a private policy behind closed doors on these islands. We must be prepared to be internationalist—although, at the same time, under the regime that we have had since the 1960s, private and individual breeders still exist. There are small breeding companies as well as large ones in the British Society of Plant Breeders.
The second factor that concerns me and the hon. Member for Linlithgow—who is right to say that these matters should be debated—is the question of genetic manipulation. There are different kinds of genetic manipulation, according to whether one is importing genes from a completely different species or is simply bringing in a particular gene to help disease resistance from broadly within the same family of plants.
It is worth recording that if one is a plant breeder—as I hoped to be all those years ago—one is in effect manipulating genes to produce a particular result. There is no absolute conceptual difference between that and using modern techniques such as gene splicing. The important thing is that they should not give rise to concerns about the environment.
The hon. Member for Lewes did not pay sufficient heed to the existence of the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment—which is the responsibility of the Department of the Environment—as against the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes, which is the responsibility of MAFF. These matters are looked at carefully and, in my ministerial days, I discussed them not just with farmers and plant breeders, but with environmentalists.
We have a sensible regime, which will take the precautionary principle seriously and will make good use of it. We should not run away from the concept of genetic modification, although we must watch it. As we have heard, it does not adhere directly to the Bill as drafted.

Mr. Dalyell: During his time as a Minister, did the hon. Gentleman give any thought to recent American pressure in relation to maize and other items on the whole question of genetically modified organisms?

Mr. Boswell: I am slightly concerned about that. I personally felt that, in the interests of genetic


modification, that was not the best way to handle the maize issue, and the inability to secure traceability and labelling was an unfortunate negative. Eventually, I hope that that will be a lesson learned by the producers of this material, as well as those seeking to use it.
I was about to make the point that genetic manipulation, if used properly—for example, if it enhances disease resistance or enables less use of pesticides—can be positive for the environment. It is not a one-way street.
My third point concerns what I might term specialist and minority uses. I mentioned that I did not feel that the hon. Member for Lewes quite gave sufficient credence to the fact that people still use the materials, even as owner-breeders. I have a cousin—as I discovered rather surprisingly during a Select Committee visit to New Zealand some years ago—whose family developed the Braeburn apple. I am not sure whether that is a positive in British terms, although, as I am no longer a Minister, I can say that, in my opinion, it is a very good apple.
The apple was found growing in the drive of their farm in 1952. It was an indigenous apple and no one knew its breeding. But it was developed, selected and commercialised, and took 15 to 20 years to reach this country. I am glad it did, but whether it is regarded as a native or a developed cultivated plant is an interesting question.
In my experience, there was a steady drip of correspondence on minority varieties that were not on the European descriptive list. There was reasonable concern from amateur gardeners, who felt that they might be prevented from selling seed to their neighbours, but we had ways around this problem which were satisfactory.
I visited the Henry Doubleday research institute-like other hon. Members, I am interested in that side, as well as the purely industrial and commercial crops—which found a way of sending material out in plain envelopes and giving it away so that it was not commercialised. Perhaps unusually, we were in alliance with the French in trying to persuade the Commission into some kind of derogation, which would make things a little more legitimate. I should be grateful if the Minister could spare a moment on that matter during his winding-up speech.
I wish to refer to clause 9 and the question of farm-saved seed, a direct interest of myself and agriculture contractors. I accept that the Minister has given assurances in good faith, although he may wish to reflect on whether they are the right assurances, or whether they could have been included in the Bill. It is an important matter, which will not entirely go away. It is not just the existing varieties that are involved.
I have said that I grow Riband, but I could easily convert to Blaze or Consort, and I could possibly get another 1 or 2 per cent. uplift in yield, or better disease resistance. In making a decision, I shall have a mind to the commercial prospects of the two.
I hope that the Minister will remember that that is one aspect. Assurances have been given as part of a complex deal to produce a sensibly lower level, which I always interpret to mean a lower level and a sensible level. I am glad that the parties were able to negotiate that without ministerial interference, but it is a delicately poised settlement, and he has sought with good will not to disturb it.
The final point is the speed of the Bill. The Minister was right to say that the Bill was out in draft and had been thought about—I say this delicately—for a year or two before that. I am pleased that it is now going forward. Nevertheless, as he well knows, a Minister does not get up every morning and read his potential Bill in detail before shaving. He deals with it and is briefed on it when it gets to the white heat of a parliamentary debate. At that moment, Ministers—whether in this or any other Department—start seeing the snags, angles and concerns about it. The trade associations will also make their representations at that moment.
The Minister wants to get the Bill through today, and we will not seek in any way to inhibit that, but I hope that he will feel receptive to any comments made here and by the trade associations, because he and I wish to give the Bill a fair wind and to make sure that it works effectively to underpin what is already a British success story—the success of British plant breeders and our cereal-growing industry.

Mr. John Hayes: I should like to start by supporting the comment of my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) that this is a British success story. The seed industry in this country is now worth between £350 million and £400 million per year, and one should not ignore the approximately £35 million of royalties from the activities that we are discussing. We are among the leading countries in plant breeding, although others, such as Holland, might claim greater status. For that reason, the Bill is a suitable and appropriate clarification of the position, and a clarification of the relationship between the farmer and the breeder.
It seemed to me that there were three misconceptions in the speech of the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker). The first was his antipathy to the internationalism that is increasingly prevalent in this field. It is unavoidable—the nature of such developments are, almost by definition, international. The collaboration between breeders across the world is an inevitable consequence of improving technology and communications, and it will not go away.
As colleagues have pointed out, the British Society of Plant Breeders has about 45 members, including some independents—one of the top seven plant breeders is situated in my constituency. The picture is not one sided; there is diversity. The organisations represent the small breeders, the people who work in highly specialist fields and those who work with particular crop varieties and not merely the big companies to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
The second error made by the hon. Member for Lewes was to confuse this Bill with that affecting genetically modified organism technology.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. The hon. Gentleman must address the Chair and not another hon. Member.

Mr. Hayes: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
While the Bill will have some impact in that respect, it is not principally a means by which we will affect the controls on such developments. The hon. Gentleman perhaps exaggerated the impact that these proposals will


have on GMO technology. Thirdly, he displayed a certain naivety about the relationship between the farmer and the breeder. Clearly, it is in farmers' best interests to have a positive and co-operative relationship with breeders. For the most part, it is not true to say that there is a conflict of interest between the farmer and the breeder.
On the margin, there may be some points of difference. The National Farmers Union will, of course, argue the farmers' case and I am an associate member of that union, so I certainly have no prejudice against farmers. However, the vast majority of farmers and growers will welcome the co-operation with breeders that the Bill embodies and will respect the fact that without plant breeders we would not have made the great advances in yield, quality and disease resistance that have been made in the past 40 years. In all those respects, farmers have clearly benefited substantially from the work of plant breeders. Most farmers would readily recognise that, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry, who speaks with considerably more authority than I do, he being a practitioner.
I shall comment on three aspects of the Bill. First, the Minister's comment about the relationship between farmers and breeders and the comment that he was happy to leave matters of royalty on farm-saved seed to informal agreement are valid, but such an arrangement would need to be monitored carefully. Farmers are understandably concerned that unrestricted control of royalties would not be desirable. Future discussions between farmers and breeders need to be studied carefully. One would not want unrestricted control to pass into the hands of the breeders through the degree of informality that the Minister mentioned. Informality is fine, but it needs to be carefully monitored.
Secondly, I hope that the Minister will clarify the nature of the penalties for those who choose not to abide by the proposed legislation.
Thirdly, perhaps the Minister can clarify the interface between these proposals and the legislation affecting GMO technology, to which the hon. Member for Lewes referred. The Minister alluded to it, as did several hon. Members. I and other hon. Members would welcome such clarification, as would the hon. Member for Lewes, I imagine, judging by what he said.
On exclusion until 2001, much has been made of the fact that plant varieties have limited lives. That is certainly true of cereal crops, but it varies from one crop to another. For all sorts of commercial rather than technological reasons, potatoes have a much longer life cycle than many other crops. Many of the older varieties affected by control to 2001 will be played out beyond that date, as my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry said. One wonders—in the interests of farmers—whether the exclusion might continue in perpetuity. This is a personal view, but it is certainly one which has been expressed by a number of farmers and I do not think I am breaking any confidences when I say that the British Society of Plant Breeders would not be entirely unsympathetic to that view. The impact of such an extension of the exclusion would diminish over the years as the varieties became rarer. Many people would therefore welcome some extension beyond 2001.
With those minor caveats, suggestions and questions I welcome the Bill, as have other hon. Members, on the grounds that it clarifies and codifies the situation and

brings it up to date. I am sure that hon. Members will agree that the legislation should be based on the premise that the relationship between farmers and breeders is usually, although not always, one of co-operation and not conflict. We need legislation that would underpin that co-operation for the benefit of both farmers and breeders, as well as of the wider community.

Mr. James Paice: I must start my brief contribution by informing the House of my interests in this matter. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell), I grow corn, albeit on a much smaller scale. I have just one field of corn on my property, but the fact remains that I grow it—this year, it is Riband—and, therefore, I have an interest to declare.
I am also privileged to represent the British Society of Plant Breeders, which has its headquarters in my constituency, a number of plant breeding companies—similar to those represented by my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley)—and, of course, many farmers.
This debate has been marked out by the exceptional maiden speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins). As is traditional, he described his constituency in glowing terms and all of us who know it will accept them. At times when one listens to maiden speeches, it takes a little broad mindedness to accept the glowing terms ascribed to some areas, but that is certainly not true of his constituency. He also paid rightful tribute to our great friend Michael Jopling, who is now a colleague in the other place.
Coincidentally, I first met Michael Jopling in 1975, when he held the post that I now occupy—the No. 2 Opposition spokesman on agriculture. That was at the time of the then Labour Government's destruction of the farm tenancy system by the introduction of inherited tenancies, which led to the drying up of supply, as we believed that it would.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale on an exceptionally good and clear speech about his constituency and his views on this issue. I was particularly interested in his comments about the controller's salary. I noticed the look of consternation that passed down the row of officials as soon as civil servants' salaries were raised. That bodes well for my hon. Friend's future contributions in the House. I also share his recognition and experience of the way in which, despite our differences, the House can come together at times of individual trial and grief. I, too, lost my father a few months ago, and I entirely share my hon. Friend's feelings.
Most of the issues that have arisen are probably best dealt with in amendments, and I shall certainly press the Minister on them in Committee, so for now I want only to refer to one or two contributions. My hon. Friend—and neighbour—the Member for South Cambridgeshire represents part of the area that I formerly represented, including much of the National Institute of Agricultural Botany, where so much work is done with plant varieties and purity testing and where the approved lists originate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Daventry demonstrated, as one would expect from a former Minister responsible for such matters, his immense knowledge of the subject. I look forward to his


contributions in Committee. He reminded us of many of the old varieties and I cannot forbear reminiscing for a moment: years ago, I was a qualified crop inspector, inspecting thousands of acres of cereals and legumes, as standing crops, for varietal purity. Sadly, other things got in the way and my qualifications have long since lapsed, but I recall many enjoyable and not so enjoyable days traipsing through standing crops with my yardstick—it was a yardstick in those days—testing for purity.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes), who also has a huge constituency, expressed a view that I hold dear: that ultimately the interests of farmers and of plant breeders must be the same. They are interdependent, and that is why the Opposition welcome the Bill, which originated in our time in government. It represents the convention for the protection of new varieties of plants—the UPOV convention—and the European Union regulation and has had a long and sometimes painful birth. I am aware, from my constituency involvement, of how long it took for the discussions between farmers and breeders to come up with an agreement on farm-saved seed. They now recognise their interdependence.
We have some questions of detail, but not of principle, so we do not intend to oppose the Bill; if it is pressed to a Division, we shall support it.

Mr. Rooker: I shall reply to the debate succinctly, on the basis that questions of detail can be dealt with in Committee. I am grateful for the constructive way in which hon. Members have approached what is a complex and technical Bill. There is an enormous amount of knowledge around from outside interests, and perhaps that has helped us to have a balanced and supportive debate. It is also clear that some hon. Members have taken the trouble to read the compliance cost assessment and check what is in the Library; I am grateful for that, and for the back-up that has been available to me as a new Minister in preparing for the debate.
The hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) asked various questions, many of which I hope that he will not feel obliged to repeat in Committee; nevertheless, I will do my best to give him detailed answers in Committee, rather than now. I want to disabuse him straight away of any impression that the Bill allows or provides for retrospective payments; it does not and there are no grounds for supposing that it does.
We have an enormously complex protective arrangement to ensure that the food that gets on the table in our homes is safe. I freely admit—I have said it both inside and outside the House since taking office—as someone who was not involved with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in the past, that I was astonished to see the hundreds of people working in MAFF on food safety and regulation, in a detailed, supportive and professional way, whose work has been completely overshadowed by the few big crises that we all know about and need not go into now.
No new foods can be created in this country without being constantly checked and tested. No new products or ingredients are allowed into the country without checks and testing. Nothing should happen by accident, and if

accidents happen we have a procedure for dealing with them—and we even intend to tighten the procedures that we have inherited.

Mr. Baker: If food safety has been such a roaring success in recent years, why are the Government introducing a food standards agency?

Mr. Rooker: We are introducing legislation to transfer the very people whom I have just described, plus others in the Department of Health, to allow them to work in a more concentrated fashion. They will be seen to be completely independent of the Government, so when problems arise it will not have to be a Minister who is the arbiter. If hon. Members are not interested in having a food standards agency, I shall be glad to debate it with them when we introduce the relevant Bill. We want to improve the regulatory system and boost consumer confidence.
The hon. Member for Lewes gave the impression that food ingredients and seeds are uncontrolled and appear on the plate in consumers' homes without any checks. That is simply not the case, as I shall make clear when we introduce the other legislation. I welcome his amendments, however, as we are proceeding not in a rush but at the convenience of the House.
The House will rule on whether we proceed to further stages. As is right with such a Bill, announced only last week, starred amendments have been selected. I freely admit that the Government originally contemplated introducing the Bill in the other place, but the timetable following the general election for the preparation of legislation was such that there was a convenient slot that we thought it right to take advantage of today.
My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) raised many issues, some of which were well outside the scope of the Bill, but I understand why he raised them. He asked about the strength of our regulatory system. I told him that we have in place the necessary regulatory systems, through the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment, to ensure that genetically modified plants are not released into the environment. As the hon. Member for Daventry rightly said, that is a matter for the Department of the Environment.
On food safety, my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow recognised that no new foods could be made available to the public without clearance from the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes. A few weeks ago, I sat in on a meeting of that Committee. I freely admit that I am an ordinary production engineer and the science is way over my head, but the committee is incredibly high powered, with people with doctorates, vice-chancellors and professors around the table. There are two non-scientific members, one of whom is specifically concerned with ethics; I believe that that is almost unique among the Government's advisory committees.
People are concerned about novel foods and processes. We did not invent the committee; its members were already in place when we came to office. It is not a secret science committee: it has a consumer input and an ethical input, and that is extremely important. We want to reinforces that contribution in other bodies involved with the Ministry.

Mr. Dalyell: Is there any disadvantage in having two committees running in parallel, one responsible to MAFF and the other to the Department of the Environment?

Mr. Rooker: I know of no difficulty, but there is clearly incredible cross-fertilisation between Whitehall Departments. Sometimes it is right that matters are dealt with by more than one Ministry so that a different set of minds is brought to them. The point will be raised in more detail later in the year, or certainly next year, when we produce a draft Bill on the food standards agency following the White Paper.
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins). I have no problem in saying that the Lake district is the most beautiful part of my country. I really enjoyed my ministerial away-day in his constituency yesterday. It was my second away-day out of London, both of which have been in the north of England. I was educated, informed and made extremely welcome by all the people whom I met in the environmentally sensitive farm that I visited, in the farm shops and while launching the booklet. I freely admitted that the farm shop innovation was not thought up by this Government but was something that we carried through happily from the previous Government. I pay tribute to the previous documents that MAFF has published on farm diversification.
The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale made a remarkable maiden speech. He rightly reminded us of Michael Jopling, to whom hon. Members who were in the House before the general election are grateful. It took 34 months for us to debate the Jopling report after it was published. I always said that that was a disgrace. A questionnaire found that 85 to 90 per cent. of hon. Members agreed with all its recommendations and could not understand why we had had to wait for 34 months to civilise our arrangements. That involved not cutting but reorganising our hours. We pay tribute to Michael Jopling for that.
The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale asked about the power of the controller and the assistant controller. I make no bones about it. I am not prepared—I do not think that any Minister would be—to discuss the individual salaries of professional, career civil servants. This is not a quango. They are career civil servants appointed by Ministers. One of their duties is dealing with plant varieties. I asked about the other duties that they perform this morning. They deal with plant variety rights, national listing—which was raised by many hon. Members but has nothing to do with the Bill—and seed certification. The plant variety office, in respect of all the factors that I mentioned, is operated by about three dozen people; the plant variety rights system costs about £1 million a year. All of that is recovered from the fees that plant breeders pay; there is no cost to the taxpayer. When officials represent Britain abroad, plant breeders do not pay; that is a taxpayer-funded job because it is a matter of public interest. He would not expect me to go beyond that.
The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale asked about the powers of Ministers to instruct farmers to hand over information under clause 9. Farmers will have to give exactly the same information as they do under the EC system, including their name and address, the amount of seeds saved, the name and address of the processor and, if appropriate, when they previously saved seed of the

variety concerned. That is not onerous. Processors will have to give breeders the same information as they have given under the EC system, including name and address, the name and address of the person for whom they processed the farm-saved seed, and the amount and variety they processed. That is not onerous. If anyone can put a case that it is, I shall consider it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) asked about the speed of the Bill's passage. I hope that I have covered that point. I compliment him for taking the trouble to find out that notes on clauses were in the Vote Office and that the compliance cost assessment was in the Library. That is a very helpful document and the only one in which figures are given. I commend it to hon. Members. They may find it useful reading while we are having the Division that the Liberals may call.
The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) exemplified the knowledge of hon. Members who represent both breeders and farmers. It is helpful to have Members who represent both sides. They understand the balance that has been struck. They realise that breeders cannot operate without farmers and vice versa; they are interdependent.
The second maiden speech was that of the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed), to whom I pay tribute. I note his compliments to Robert Hicks. I was first elected in February 1974, and remember that the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) was here during the interregnum in 1974 and then out of the House for all the years that Robert Hicks looked after the constituency so ably. Everyone will be grateful for his tribute to Robert Hicks. I wish his constituency well with the Eden institute. I hope that the lottery money for it does not take as long as that for some projects in my constituency. That is a constant problem for hon. Members.
The hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell), a fellow midlands Member, supported the Bill. He was right to pay tribute, as do I, to the work of the officers, officials and scientists who put the Bill together over the years. If the issue had been different on 1 May he would probably have been standing at the Dispatch Box now. He understood the need for speed. We are not rushing against anyone's wishes. We will do our best.
I accept that a Bill that goes through all its stages in one day, if that is the wish of the House, deserves very detailed consideration in the other place. The Government will be more than susceptible to amendments tabled and comments made in the other place. If the other place amends the Bill, we should be happy to provide the necessary time, as would be our duty, to ensure that the House can properly debate the issue. I give that assurance. Given what I have said for about 20 years as a Back Bencher, I would do nothing else.
I am grateful for the support of the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) for the Bill and for his comments on the speech of the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker), which I found helpful even though he had to do a 180 deg turn to the Chair to present them. He pointed out that co-operation of farmers and breeders is crucial. He asked about genetically modified organism technology. I cannot go into detail now, but there will be an opportunity to do so in Committee or on Third Reading. I will certainly give him an answer. Whenever we discuss such issues, hon. Members will raise GMO technology. I am as concerned as anyone: I am an


ordinary consumer. Where genetic modification is involved, there must be complete openness. Public confidence must be built, and that can come only from openness of information on labelling and on technology transfer and exchanges. It is vital that we do that. We do not want to put people off. GMO technology will happen anyway, so Britain cannot opt out. We and our farmers would suffer economically. Our technology and economic interests would suffer if we sought to opt out of technology.
The hon. Member for Daventry asked about smaller varieties. That is a question for the national list. Without going over the matter in greater detail, having had a quick opportunity to take advice, my views are generally those that he expressed in writing to people when he was a Minister. Clearly, we will press for changes in the Community. It would be churlish to quote him back his own letter, but I hope that he will be satisfied that that is the view that I am currently content to take. I hope that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading.

Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 289, Noes 35.

Division No. 38]
[6.58 pm


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)


Ainger, Nick



Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Anderson, Janet (Ros'dale)
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Atkins, Ms Charlotte
Clelland, David


Austin, John
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Banks, Tony
Coaker, Vernon


Barnes, Harry
Cohen, Harry


Barron, Kevin
Collins, Tim


Battle, John
Connarty, Michael


Bayley, Hugh
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Begg, Miss Anne (Aberd'n S)
Cooper, Ms Yvette


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Corbett, Robin


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Corbyn, Jeremy


Bennett, Andrew F
Cousins, Jim


Benton, Joe
Cranston, Ross


Bermingham, Gerald
Crausby, David


Best, Harold
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Betts, Clive
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Boswell, Tim
Dalyell, Tam


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Davidson, Ian


Bradshaw, Ben
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Day, Stephen


Browne, Desmond (Kilmarnock)
Dean, Ms Janet


Buck, Ms Karen
Denham, John


Burden, Richard
Dismore, Andrew


Burgon, Colin
Dobbin, Jim


Butler, Christine
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank


Byers, Stephen
Donohoe, Brian H


Caborn, Richard
Drew, David


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Edwards, Huw


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Efford, Clive


Caplin, Ivor
Ellman, Ms Louise


Casale, Roger
Ennis, Jeff


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Chaytor, David
Fitzsimons, Ms Lorna


Clapham, Michael
Flint, Ms Caroline


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Flynn, Paul





Follett, Ms Barbara
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Gapes, Mike
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Gardiner, Barry
Liddell, Mrs Helen


Garnier, Edward
Lock, David


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
Love, Andy


Gerrard, Neil
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Gibson, Dr Ian
McAllion, John


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
McAvoy, Thomas


Godman, Dr Norman A
McCabe, Stephen


Goggins, Paul
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Golding, Mrs Llin
McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
McDonagh, Ms Siobhain


Grant, Bernie
Macdonald, Calum


Griffiths, Ms Jane (Reading E)
McFall, John


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Grocott, Bruce
McIsaac, Ms Shona


Grogan, John
McKenna, Ms Rosemary


Gunnell, John
Mackinlay, Andrew


Hain, Peter
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
McNulty, Tony


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Mactaggart, Fiona


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
McWatter, Tony


Hanson, David
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Hayes, John
Marek, Dr John


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Healey, John
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Heppell, John
Marshall—Andrews, Robert


Hill, Keith
Martlew, Eric


Hinchliffe, David
Maxton, John


Hoey, Kate
Meale, Alan


Hood, Jimmy
Michael, Alun


Hoon, Geoffrey
Milburn, Alan


Hope, Philip
Miller, Andrew


Hopkins, Kelvin
Mitchell, Austin


Howells, Dr Kim
Moffatt, Laura


Hoyle, Lindsay
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)
Moran, Ms Margaret



Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)


Humble, Mrs Joan
Morley, Elliot


Hurst, Alan
Mudie, George


Hutton, John
Mullin, Chris


Iddon, Brian
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampst'd)
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Jackson, Mrs Helen (Hillsborough)
Norris, Dan


Jamieson, David
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Jenkins, Brian (Tamworth)
O'Hara, Edward


Johnson, Alan (Hull W)
Organ, Mrs Diana


Johnson, Ms Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Paice, James



Pearson, Ian


Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Pickles, Eric



Pickthall, Colin


Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
Pike, Peter L


Jones, Ms Fiona (Newark)
Plaskitt, James


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Pond, Chris


Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)
Pope, Greg



Pound, Stephen


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Powell, Sir Raymond


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Jowell, Ms Tessa
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Keeble, Ms Sally
Primarolo, Dawn


Keen, Alan (Feltham)
Prosser, Gwyn


Keen, Mrs Ann (Brentford)
Purchase, Ken


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Khabra, Piara S
Quinn, Lawrie


Kidney, David
Rapson, Syd


Kilfoyle, Peter
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


King, Miss Oona (Bethnal Green)
Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)


Kumar, Dr Ashok



Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Rooker, Jeff


Lansley, Andrew
Rooney, Terry


Laxton, Bob
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Leslie, Christopher
Roy, Frank


Levitt, Tom
Ruane, Chris






Ruddock, Ms Joan
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Ryan, Ms Joan
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Salter, Martin
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Savidge, Malcolm
Tipping, Paddy


Sedgemore, Brian
Touhig, Don


Sheerman, Barry
Truswell, Paul


Shipley, Ms Debra
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Singh, Marsha
Turner, Desmond (Kemptown)


Skinner, Dennis
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Smith, Ms Angela (Basildon)
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)



Tyrie, Andrew


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Vis, Dr Rudi


Snape, Peter
Watts, David


Soley, Clive
White, Brian


Southworth, Ms Helen
Whittingdale, John


Spellar, John
Wicks, Malcolm


Spelman, Mrs Caroline
Wilkinson, John


Squire, Ms Rachel
Williams, Dr Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Starkey, Dr Phyllis



Stevenson, George
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Wise, Audrey


Stinchcombe, Paul
Wood, Mike


Stoate, Dr Howard
Woolas, Phil


Stott, Roger
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Streeter, Gary
Wright, Tony (Gt Yarmouth)


Stringer, Graham
Wyatt, Derek


Stuart, Mrs Gisela (Edgbaston)



Sutcliffe, Gerry
Tellers for the Ayes:


Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Mr. Jim Dowd and



Mr. Graham Allen.


NOES


Baker, Norman
(Ross Skye& Inverness W)


Ballard, Mrs Jackie
Kirkwood, Archy


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Livsey, Richard


Brand, Dr Peter
Maclennan, Robert


Breed, Colin
Moore, Michael


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Oaten, Mark


Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)
Opik, Lembit


Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)
Rendel, David


Cotter, Brian
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Fearn, Ronnie
Sanders, Adrian


Foster, Don (Bath)
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Hancock, Mike
Taylor, Matthew (Truro & St Austell)


Harris, Dr Evan
Wallace, James


Harvey, Nick
Webb, Steven


Heath, David (Somerton)
Willis, Phil


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)



Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Tellers for the Noes:


Keetch, Paul
Mr. Paul Tyler and


Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)
Mr. Andrew Stunell.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a Second time

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills),
That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Betts.]

Question agreed to.

Bill immediately considered in Committee.

[MR. MICHAEL J. MARTIN in the Chair]

The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael J. Martin): I have a statement to make. On the list of manuscript amendments some hon. Members may have in their hands, the amendments are

numbered 1 to 4. On the Chairman of Ways and Means' provisional selection of amendments, the manuscript amendments are listed as amendments Nos. 9 to 12. The Chair will ensure that hon. Members will know which amendment is before the Committee when each debate starts.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

THE PLANT VARIETY RIGHTS OFFICE

Mr. Baker: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 25, after subsection (1), insert—
`(1A) The Controller shall each year make a report of his activities to Ministers, who shall lay a copy of every such report before Parliament.'.
The amendment relates to the accountability of the controller of plant variety rights. I shall not take up too much of the Committee's time, because we had the substantive debate on Second Reading and now we want to concentrate on minor, technical points.
I am grateful to the Minister for having said earlier that he recognised the need for the public to have confidence in the food safety system. He also recognised the need for openness in that system. Given the concerns that have been expressed, not only by Liberal Democrat Members, but, to a lesser extent, by Labour and Conservative Members, I hope that he will look favourably on the amendment. Given the uncertainty in some people's minds about the direction in which those matters are progressing, it is an important safeguard for openness in food safety that, once a year, Ministers should have to lay a copy of such a report before Parliament. That is also in line with the Minister's thinking, so I hope that he will accept the amendment.

Mr. Rooker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his amendment. If a report on the activities of the controller were not already to be published, I would have accepted the amendment; however, what the hon. Gentleman is asking for already happens.
The decisions that the controller proposes to take or has taken are required to be published—and are published—monthly in the Plant Varieties and Seeds Gazette, of which I have obtained a copy for my better information. An annual edition of the gazette is published each year and provides details of all grants of rights in effect at the time of publication and information showing, for example, the name of the variety, who holds the rights and when they expire. The gazette is publicly available. Other information in applications for rights and rights granted is held on the registers in the plant variety rights office. Those may be inspected by members of the public during normal office hours and copies of entries on the register are freely available on request.
A substantial amount of information is therefore already published. More information is in the public domain and may be inspected or copies obtained on request. The amendment is therefore unnecessary. I have been told that no part of the work of the plant variety rights office is not already published and available. Accountability to the House is therefore ensured.

Mr. Baker: I am grateful to the Minister for listing the ways in which members of the public and Members of Parliament can obtain information about the activities of the controller. Perhaps the amendment was badly worded; what I sought to achieve was that, each year, Parliament would have an opportunity to debate those matters, rather than the information being published in a form that required hon. Members to bring the matter forward in a different way. However, I am grateful for the Minister' s response and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4

CONDITIONS FOR THE GRANT OF RIGHTS

Mr. Baker: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 2, line 42, at end insert
`, but no variety which occurs naturally in the wild shall be the subject of a grant of plant breeders' rights.'.
Thank you for selecting my amendment, Mr Deputy Speaker.
This is a testing amendment, to which I hope the Minister will respond in a positive mariner. There is anxiety about the fact that, with plant breeders' rights, it is possible to annex something that occurs naturally and claim it as a "discovery"—which is a word that is used in clause 4(6)—and thereby to market it and claim credits, and remuneration, for that.
The hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) mentioned a species or variety of apple. I can understand that sometimes a naturally occurring plant—fruit, vegetable or whatever—may be developed in such a way as to constitute something that has been added on and so would qualify for some sort of intellectual right. However, I am anxious to prevent it being possible for something that has always occurred naturally to be "discovered" and for benefit in financial terms to be accrued from that "discovery".
There is a dangerous precedent, which I hope that the Minister will address, regarding relations between the north and the south. If this principle were written into the Bill, something that has been growing for a very long time, to the benefit of farmers in the third world in particular, might be "discovered" and written into legislation in Europe. If that were the case, that could be to the detriment of those who were perhaps, dare I say it, simple farmers in the third world, and to the benefit of those who understood how laws worked and were able to exploit that knowledge for their own purposes.
That is the purpose of moving the amendment. I hope that the Minister can give an assurance that he understands that.

Mr. Rooker: I hope to satisfy the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) again.
If a breeder discovers a plant growing in the wild, he must carry out significant selection and re-crossing to establish distinctness, uniformity and—most important—

stability. Wild plants invariably lack uniformity and stability, so it is not just a question of discovering something that is in the wild; the breeder must develop and do something about it. It is for that reason that clause 4(3) provides that:
the person entitled to the grant of plant breeders' rights
in respect of a wild plant
is the person who…discovers and develops it"—
not just discovers it. I cannot accept the amendment because it is both unnecessary and unworkable.
The hon. Member for Daventry, who mentioned the apple in New Zealand, said that, having discovered the apple in the wild, it took that family 15 years to bring it to the market; it was not a question of picking something up and commercialising it.
I hope that, following that assurance, the hon. Member for Lewes will withdraw his amendment.

Mr. Baker: I will withdraw the amendment, but I draw to the Minister's attention the fact that, in clause 4(6), the word "discovery" is present and the word "develop" is not. That was why I moved the amendment. I am now happy to withdraw it.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6

PROTECTED VARIETY

Mr. Paice: I beg to move amendment No. 9, page 3, line 21, leave out from 'above' to end of line 22.

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 10, page 3, line 23, leave out from 'may' to end of line 24 and insert—
'impose reasonable conditions or limitations when giving authority for the purposes of subsection (1) above.'.

Mr. Paice: I do not wish to detain the Committee long, but the two amendments are specific.
I should like to press the Minister on why he has decided to insert in paragraph (h) of clause 6(1) what most of us would describe as a catch-all phrase. It is additional to the wording that appears in the European regulation, so we are seeing, not a direct transposition of European law into British law, but what, under the previous Government, would have been termed "gold plating"—the habit that some people have of taking a European regulation and not only transposing it into law but adding bells and whistles, with the often undesirable consequential effect of overburdening those whom it affects.
The purpose of amendment No. 9 is to persuade the Government that they do not need paragraph (h) because the EU regulation in the other items covers all the possible acts. If the Minister is convinced that he needs that catch-all phrase, I should be grateful if he would give the Committee some examples of the type of situation in which he envisages that the phrase will need to be used.
Amendment No. 10, which, like amendment No. 9, stands in my name and the names of my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), would introduce a requirement that due regard be given to the balance of interests of those beyond the plant breeding industry, which would benefit the whole of the agri-food industry without restricting plant breeders' rights. It stems from the belief that some protection is required from the potential abuse of unrestricted rights, which is detrimental as it stands.
The potato crop is an example which has been mentioned many times. The current system allows for excessive marketing levies, from which breeders derive very little benefit. The purpose of the amendment is simply to introduce the element of reasonableness into breeders' rights.
I hope that the Minister responds positively to the two amendments, which we believe to be in the spirit of the Bill.

Mr. Rooker: I am grateful to the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) for the way in which he has spoken to the amendments. He has asked legitimate questions.
Regarding amendment No. 9, it is envisaged that paragraph 6(1)(h) may be used, for example, to extend the breeder's rights in respect of ornamentals to include their use for production of cut flowers. The 1991 convention permits contracting states to extend the breeder's rights to acts other than those specifically mentioned in it. I do not believe that anyone would argue about that.
However, we envisage that, in some circumstances, Ministers might use those powers to extend the breeder's right to the production and propagation of a variety for the purpose of producing cut flowers, foliage or fruit. Similar provisions exist in the Plant Varieties and Seeds Act 1964 and rights have been extended in a number of species. If, and only if, we are convinced that breeders of ornamentals and fruit varieties need a similar provision to enable them to protect their rights and obtain a reasonable return on them, we would consider using those powers for that purpose. That is why those powers are in the Bill. That is an example of the way in which we envisage using them, and the area in which we envisage doing so.
Some aspects of the Bill relate to the public interest, but we are legislating for relationships between two contracting parties, neither of whom are the Government: the grower and the seed specialist—the breeder. We can set ground rules on some issues, but the way in which they develop their arrangements is for them, not for the House.
I cannot accept amendment No. 10 because it goes further than any provisions in the EC sector or in other countries which protect their plant breeders' rights. If holders of rights impose conditions that are against the public interest, an application can be made to the controller of plant variety rights for a compulsory licence. No licences have been issued, but that is the level of the sanction against those who impose the wrong conditions. That sanction is necessary. If the holder of rights imposes conditions that are unacceptable to a person seeking a licence, but are not against the public interest, that is a matter for the parties concerned. It is not a matter for us to write into the Bill or for the Government to take a view about.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman realises that the Bill should not be amended in the way that he wishes.

Mr. Paice: I thank the Minister. On amendment No. 9, I appreciate his explanation of the need to allow for the addition of cut flowers and other items. I thought of another example earlier—gifts—but the Minister did not mention them. What would happen if some bright salesman decided to give away a tonne of seed with a tractor that he was selling? Perhaps the power would be invoked on such an occasion.
I was less enthused by the Minister's reply to amendment No. 10, but I understand what he says about it going much further than the European regulations. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 7 and 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9

FARM SAVED SEED

Mr. Paice: I beg to move amendment No. 11, in page 5, line 20, at beginning insert—
`After 30th June 2001, where required to do so by a regulation made by the Council of the European Communities,'.

The Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 3, in page 6, line 4, leave out subsection (11).

Mr. Paice: The subject matter of the amendment was raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) on Second Reading. The Minister responded by assuring the Committee that the purpose of giving him or his successors the right to remove the exemption at a date other than 30 June 2001 is purely to allow the date to be extended. That is precisely the intention behind the amendment, too.
If the Minister were in my position today, I am sure that he would point out that the Bill as published does not provide for such an extension. He would therefore be serving the interests of the House and the industry, and strengthening his own words, if he accepted the amendment, which merely includes in the Bill the undertaking that he gave earlier.

Mr. Cash: The Bill is much more complex and important than its innocuous title suggests, and it poses problems for constituents of mine and for the National Association of Agricultural Contractors. I am glad to note that my successor as the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney)—I now represent Stone—has already alluded to some of the questions that I want to raise. He appears to have some of the briefing papers that I have.
I abstained on Second Reading because of those difficulties. Indeed, I cannot accept the direction in which some of the provisions are headed. The issue that concerns my constituents and their association most has to do with subsection (6):
The Ministers may by order provide that, on such date as may be specified in the order, subsection (5) above shall cease to have effect in relation to a variety so specified, or varieties of a species or group so specified.


The reference here to subsection (5) lies at the heart of the difficulty.
European Union plant breeders' rights gave holders rights over farm-saved seed which enabled them to charge a royalty on it. The United Kingdom breeders applied for the EU rights for varieties no older than the end of 1991, as first registered. Some difficult and protracted negotiations led eventually to agreements between the farmers, breeders and contractors on rates of royalty and collection methods. Those agreements were reached on the basis that varieties older than those applied for in the EU would not be royalty bearing. This, for the farmers and contractors, was an extremely important principle and was expected to last for the lifespan of the older varieties.
The arrangement partially maintains an ancient agricultural right. It also helps to maintain a fair market balance in terms of royalty rates; and it is the cornerstone of farmers' and contractors' acceptance of a radical devaluation of their rights.
Subsection (6) will destroy all this unless amended so as to apply only to varieties older than 1 January 1992. That is roughly in line with the practice under European Union rights. Contractors and farmers can live with some aspects of the Bill, but that provision worries them a great deal.
The Bill uses the term "sensibly lower" in relation to royalty rates—a curious bit of Euro-speak arrived at during the discussions on the trade agreements. The extension of rights to all the older varieties would make a mockery of those agreements, as the older varieties may not be "sensibly lower".
I am told that the problem could put the industry back a long way—unless the wording is amended. It is of far greater consequence than has yet been acknowledged. If the Government insist on the Bill in this form, it will cause considerable difficulties for the people who have written to me. I await the Minister's reply with interest.

Mr. Lansley: I want to take up again the point I made on Second Reading. The Minister has explained that the intention is to allow Ministers to extend the date from which the provisions can be applied, but that date should not be extended so far as to reduce the returns to plant breeders.
The timing of the introduction of the measure is all-important. Will the Minister refer again to the Government's intention, other things being equal, to introduce the provisions in the autumn of 2001?

Mr. Rooker: I hesitated before getting to my feet because I was wondering whether the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) was going to speak to amendment No. 3.
I understand the point made by the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice). Amendment No. 11 would add a date to the face of the Bill,
where required to do so by a regulation made by the Council of the European Communities".
I have already offered the assurance that the exemption will not be withdrawn before 30 June 2001; but the Council regulation is quite separate from national law governing plant breeders rights, so it imposes no

obligation on the UK. A decoupling may be required in the drafting of the amendment and this is neither the time nor the place to do it. Writing a date in the Bill would present problems because it would tie Ministers' hands if we had to change the date.
Getting space for primary legislation is not easy; the Bill has been in the queue for several years. That is the reality of parliamentary life. It is therefore essential that we can amend our national legislation through secondary legislation just as we can amend legislation that comes through the EC. The amendment couples the date and the regulations, whereas the two matters should be separate.

Mr. Cash: As the Minister says, the provision under subsection (6) can be made by order. Clause 45 provides for regulations and orders. The Bill empowers Ministers to make different provisions for different circumstances, and to make other adjustments to the arrangements in question. In the light of what I said about the difficulties that have been caused by the conjunction of subsections (5) and (6), would the Minister be prepared to consider at the very least making an order rectifying the question which the shadow Minister and I have raised?

Mr. Rooker: I am no expert and I have not been able to take advice, but I have been in the House long enough to know that the powers under clause 45, which are supplemental, incidental and transitionary provisions, would not come to that. This is a meaty issue, which cannot be dealt with by a technical drafting amendment.
The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) raised the issue from the other side of the coin. Let us suppose that the date were 2009. I do not wish to be quoted on that, although it may now have been taken down and used in evidence against me. Ministers do not intend to abuse that power, but would use it in the light of agreements with the industry. Following a meeting last week between the NFU and plant breeders, understandings were arrived at and will be complied with in the normal course of professional discourse. If they are not, the first to complain to Ministers will be hon. Members from both sides of the House. They will not be happy if that happens when people enter freely into commercial agreements with which the House does not wish to interfere.
There is a point of substance regarding the drafting of the amendments and I have no doubt that my words will be carefully dissected and probably looked at in another place.

Mr. Cash: Further to the point that the Minister has just made about statutory instruments, he seemed a little unsure about the application of orders. Clause 9(11) says:
Ministers may by order amend this section as they think fit"—
I stress the words "as they think fit"—
for the purpose of securing that it corresponds with the provisions for the time being of the law relating to Community plant variety rights about farm saved seed.
Will the Minister reconsider the point that he made, because my question relates directly to whether there is a power to revisit by order the matter to which I referred? Subsection (11) is unusual as it overrides many of the more general points, which I agree would normally apply to the making of orders.

Mr. Rooker: At the risk of repeating myself, order-making powers exist throughout the Bill and they


are quite specific. There is no general order-making power. Clause 9 contains two such powers. If it were accepted that we could do as we thought fit with one order-making power, the House would operate in that way and would not give Ministers those powers.
The order-making powers in the Bill are specific. The order-making power in subsection (6), which is the subject of the amendment, relates specifically to the date. We are reluctant to write a date into the Bill. I have given a commitment about the date and said that the exemption would not be withdrawn before 30 June 2001, so the amendment is unnecessary. I understand that Ministers can come and go, but I speak on behalf of the Government.

Mr. Paice: I am grateful to the Minister for his response. He has a longer period of service in the House than I, but he would agree that no Minister wants to abuse the powers given to him in a Bill; that does not necessarily mean that, at some stage in the future, that would not happen. The amendment would ensure that it would not.
I appreciate the Minister's argument that the amendment may be defective because it couples two issues that should not be coupled, but I wonder whether I may push him. He made it clear that the Government have no intention of abandoning the exemption before 30 June 2001. Will he give an undertaking that he or his noble Friends will accept an amendment to that effect when the Bill goes to the other place if the two issues are decoupled? I am concerned that the Minister's undertaking should appear in the Bill by inserting that date.

Mr. Rooker: I undertake to discuss, well in advance of the Bill going to the other place, with my noble Friend Lord Donoughue, who will take the Bill through the other place, whether the Government can come up with an amendment likely to meet those points.

Mr. Cash: Would the Minister be kind enough to give the same consideration to the point that I made?

Mr. Rooker: Yes, of course.

Mr. Paice: In the light of that assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 11

DURATION

Mr. Baker: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 6, line 32, leave out subsection (2).
I understand that I should not have called you Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir Alan. I hope that you will forgive me. Some of us are still learning our ways in this place and the intricacies are many.

The Chairman: Order. I must say to the hon. Gentleman that we are all learning in this place.

Mr. Baker: That makes me feel better.
The amendment is to test the Minister on the reasons for including subsection (2). Subsection (1) clearly states for how long plant breeders' rights should have effect. Subsection (2) seems to undermine that by saying that those specific periods can be removed or extended but gives no maximum period. Earlier contributions to the debate showed that hon. Members on both sides of the House wanted, albeit with different interpretations, to ensure that plant breeders' and farmers' rights were balanced. Subsection (2) would weigh those rights in favour of plant breeders and away from farmers. I should be grateful for any clarification and assurance on that.

Mr. Rooker: Indeed, we are all learning. This is all new to me, too.
Clause 11, as the hon. Gentleman says, is an important clause which extends the period of protection for most trees and vines from 25 to 30 years, as compared with the 1964 Act, and from 20 to 25 years for many other species. Potatoes already enjoy 30 years protection, and a few minor ornamentals and tree species are protected for 25 years under the 1964 Act.
I cannot accept the amendment because it would prevent periods of rights being altered by secondary legislation, which is currently possible under the 1964 Act. As I said on Second Reading, 80 per cent. of the Bill is existing law. We are not introducing a great deal of new legislation. If we were doing so, the House would rightly want to proceed with the Bill in a different way.
It is unlikely that the powers in the clause would be used very often. The current periods of protection mirror those in the Council regulation. The periods specified in the clause bring the position in the United Kingdom into line with that in the European Community. Should they be changed by regulation by the Community, that would lead to considerable confusion and unfair competition, if the UK were unable to respond quickly to bring the periods of protection into line with our own legislation. We need the power to do that by secondary legislation.

Mr. Baker: I am grateful for the Minister's clarification and for his assurance that he would not—or rather, that the Government would not, as I doubt whether he will still be in the same role in 30 years' time, although he may be here perhaps in a different role—extend the time limits willy-nilly, and that the purpose of the clause is to accommodate European legislation. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 13

REMEDIES FOR INFRINGEMENT

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Lansley: I wanted to raise two matters, to which I referred briefly on Second Reading, and to seek the Minister's reply. First, I refer to provision for remedies for infringement in clause 13, which do not provide specifically for circumstances in which the holder of rights fails to receive remuneration from the user of farm-saved seed. Would it be possible for the provision


also to be used by the holder of those rights to sue for proper remuneration? I understand that the clause could reflect provisions in the European regulation, articles 17 and 18.
Secondly, if persistent offenders take original seed and sell it in local markets or by other routes without giving proper return to the original holder of the rights in those varieties, could the clause be used to increase the penalties for such persistent offending?

Mr. Rooker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Because of our truncated arrangements, I am keen that no part of the Bill which any hon. Member wants to discuss gets hidden away. The fact that amendments have not been tabled is no reason not to ask questions about clauses. I could not answer every question on Second Reading.
The plant variety rights office has no role in enforcing rights. It would be incorrect to read such a role into the Bill. Clause 13 provides for holders of plant breeders' rights to take civil action in relation to infringement of their rights, including their rights in a dependent variety. It gives plant breeders the same remedies in law as are available to other owners of proprietary rights.
The Bill and the 1964 Act do not cover the case. It is a matter for arguments in the courts between two parties who happen to disagree. We do not seek to give new powers to the plant controller and the PVRO. Individuals who are aggrieved must go to court.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 15

COMPULSORY LICENCES

Mr. Paice: I beg to move amendment No. 12, in clause 15, page 7, line 29, leave out from the beginning to end of line 33 and insert—
'(a) that for the variety to which the application relates it is necessary in the public interest to do so, including the need to supply the market with material offering specified features, or to maintain the incentive for continued breeding of improved varieties,'.
The Minister will be aware that the amendment is a direct concern of the National Farmers Union. It was part of the NFU's original submission in response to the draft Bill under the previous Government. I shall press the Minister to tell the House why the Government have not accepted the NFU's view on the matter.
The amendment deals with compulsory licences, a system which the NFU believes to be inadequate and ineffective. I understand that a compulsory licence has never been granted. The limited grounds on which the controller may grant a compulsory licence as set out in the Bill are inadequate to accommodate the potato sector, for example, which has become extremely diverse in its requirements. The need to supply the market with specific varietal characteristics has become commonplace.
Moreover, the current system provides the applicant with no anonymity. That often deters an individual who is considering taking on the might of a large organisation.
The NFU and the Opposition seek a mechanism within the Bill whereby application for a compulsory licence could be made by way of a corporate approach, which would provide some protection for the individual who was seeking a compulsory licence.
It is imperative not only that the Bill is aligned with European legislation, but that it is updated to reflect the changes that have occurred in this diverse industry since 1964. That is the basis of the amendment. I hope that the Minister will accept it and give us an assurance of the intent behind it.

Mr. Rooker: It is important that the point is considered in this place, as it will clearly be raised in the other place.
The amendment looks as though it was designed to widen the grounds of public interest, so that public interest is redefined to include the need to supply the market with material offering specific commercial features—for example, potatoes for chipping.
The amendment is unnecessary. Under the Bill, the controller is required to issue a compulsory licence if a variety is not available to the public at reasonable prices or is not widely distributed. The fact that a variety may have particular qualities would be one of the many factors that he would have to take into account in ensuring that the variety was available to the public at appropriate prices and in sufficient quantities to meet the needs of the market.
I accept that such a licence has never been issued under the compulsory system. I am not sure whether anyone has ever tried—and I am not inviting anyone to do so—to question the decisions that have been reached. I do not know whether applications for such licences have been refused, or whether the process of reaching that decision is questioned. There is a system available to anyone who feels aggrieved, whether that is the NFU, any of its members or anyone else.
I see no reason for anonymity. I said earlier that there was a widely accepted degree of openness about this exercise of government and public interest. I would not want to introduce any new aspect behind closed doors.

Mr. Paice: I thank the Minister, and beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 16

SELECTION AND REGISTRATION OF NAMES

Mr. Baker: I beg to move amendment No. 5, in clause 16, page 8, line 34, after subsection (1), insert—
'(1A) Any provision for the keeping of a register made under subsection 1(c) above shall include provision for such a register to be freely open for public inspection.'.
I shall press the Minister again on a freedom of information point. The purpose of the amendment is quite clear: to ensure, first, that any information relating to the keeping of a register is open and in the public domain; and, secondly, that anyone wishing to access the register is not subject to a substantial charge. The Minister may say that such information is already available in the public domain—in which case, he should not object to writing


the provision into the Bill. He accepted my earlier point about the need to ensure that arrangements are open and above board, and this is a constructive amendment which will help the Minister to achieve that aim.

8 pm

Mr. Rooker: The hon. Gentleman has got it the wrong way around: the Government would have to seek the approval of Parliament if we were to try to deprive anyone of information that is freely available. The present system seems to work adequately. The information to which the hon. Gentleman refers is freely available and is published both monthly and annually. All the lists are available. In addition, the register may be inspected at the plant variety rights office in Cambridge during normal office hours.
There is nothing closed about the register. Before the Government could close it, we would have to seek Parliament's approval. There is no need to write into the Bill procedures that are already followed willingly.

Mr. Baker: I hear the Minister's assurances that the register will remain open. My point—which has not been answered fully—is that, unless the provision is written into the Bill, there is nothing to stop a future Government removing the right of access without seeking the approval of Parliament. I explained earlier why I believe the issue of plant breeders' rights will become more sensitive in future, and I hold to that view. It would be convenient to withhold such information in those circumstances. Although there is no problem at present, we may face difficulties in the future. The amendment would ensure that every Government had as much backbone on this issue as the Minister has demonstrated. I shall withdraw the amendment in light of the Minister's personal expression from the Dispatch Box.

Mr. Rooker: I do not give personal commitments: I make commitments on behalf of the Government. I make that absolutely clear so that there is no misunderstanding in future. Consistent with the policy of open government followed by the previous Government, the information to which the hon. Gentleman refers is openly available. This Government plan to introduce a freedom of information Act: we are not in the business of denying access to information that is already available.

Mr. Baker: I hope that the Minister will not take it personally—or be insulted on behalf of the Government—if I retain my slight scepticism regarding this matter. He mentioned a freedom of information Act. I understand that it has been drafted, but it was not in the Queen's Speech and the Government have promised to introduce it some time in the future.
The Government have denied me other information by way of written parliamentary answers although it was provided by the previous Conservative Government. Therefore, I am not convinced that the Government are committed to freedom of information—although I hope to be proved wrong in due course and I shall be happy to accept such legislation. However, until such time as we can be sure that the Government are committed to freedom of information, it is right to push them on individual cases to ensure that information is available.
I accept that the Minister is speaking on behalf of the Government, who are committed to ensuring that information is available. However, I seek to ensure that

future Governments will not be able to withdraw that information without seeking the approval of Parliament. My concern remains. I hope that the Minister will not dismiss it, but will perhaps reflect on the matter with his colleagues in another place. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 17 to 31 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 32

REFERENCE COLLECTIONS OF PLANT MATERIAL

Mr. Baker: I beg to move amendment No. 7, in page 14, line 7, leave out from 'Controller' to 'reference' and insert
'shall establish and maintain comprehensive'.
This amendment attempts to be constructive. Hon. Members have heard about the establishment that has opened in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed) and about the importance that is placed upon collections. The Bill refers to a reference collection, but it does not required that it be maintained. It refers simply to the fact that:
The Controller may establish and maintain reference collections".
The amendment seeks to emphasise the importance that the Liberal Democrats attach to the maintenance of such collections for future reference and possible future use. I hope that the Minister will accept that this is an important point and will respond positively.

Mr. Rooker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. The operation of the plant breeders' rights system would not be practical in the absence of a comprehensive reference collection, which includes information about all United Kingdom protected varieties. That is the foundation without which the system would not work, and it must be maintained. It is not a question of "may" or "shall": the system would collapse and be ineffective without that reference collection.
As drafted, the amendment would require the controller to keep a list of information from around the world. That would prove impractical and unnecessarily expensive. International co-operation in plant variety testing under the UPOV umbrella includes facilities for the exchange of information and material between testing authorities. The establishment of a more extensive reference collection in the United Kingdom would result in unnecessary expense. All information is available and can be accessed by 32 member nations under the UPOV umbrella.
As I have said, the system would not work without a reference collection. It is not a matter of discretion: it is the foundation of the system.

Mr. Baker: I am grateful to the Minister for that response. I found it slightly confusing, but perhaps that is my fault. He seemed to say that a comprehensive collection exists, while resisting replacing "may" with "shall" on the basis that an extensive reference collection would cost too much money. However, I note that the Minister is committed to maintaining a comprehensive reference collection and, on that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 32 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 33 to 51 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New clause 2

REFERENCE OF CERTAIN APPLICATIONS TO THE MONOPOLIES AND MERGERS COMMISSION

'If it shall appear to the Ministers that any company making application for the grant of plant breeders' rights would, were the application to succeed, hold more than five per cent. of the market for the crop of which the variety which is the subject of the application is a variety, then that application shall stand referred to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.'—[Mr. Baker.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Baker: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I shall not rehearse the arguments that I advanced in my speech on Second Reading. The new clause is an attempt to highlight the importance that we attach to the direction in which the ownership or patenting of seeds is moving in this country and across the world. I cited figures earlier regarding the market penetration of Monsanto and other companies. Chemical companies are buying seed companies in large numbers. In the past, there was a natural division between seed and chemical companies that provided some protection because it diluted ownership within the agricultural sector. However, that is no longer the case and we are witnessing a concentration of ownership.
In those circumstances, individual companies are able to control significant sections of the market and adversely affect it to benefit themselves and to disadvantage farmers. The Minister has not had a chance to respond in detail to the serious issues about genetically modified material that are not in the Bill but are certainly germane to it. What happens will be significant in terms of plant breeders' and farmers' rights in future.
The Minister may say that the clause is unworkable, but I hope that he will not dismiss the real concerns of hon. Members and others about market penetration by genetic engineering chemical companies that are buying up seed companies. I hope that he will not be dismissive either about my argument that we need to have some control to ensure that transnational companies that are not answerable to the Government or anyone else in this country do not distort the market to their benefit and to others' disbenefit.
If the Minister wants to find a better way of achieving my objective, I shall be happy to hear of it. I have explained what I am trying to achieve by moving the clause, and I hope that the Minister will accept the spirit that lies behind it. I hope also that he accepts that it relates to an important point. For me, it is perhaps the most important point: the interface between the chemical companies and the seed companies. The issue cannot be ignored and I hope that the Minister will respond to it.

Mr. Rooker: I shall not dismiss what the hon. Gentleman has said—far from it, because he has raised an important matter. He has attached the new clause to the Bill, but it has much more significant implications for the Department of Trade and Industry because the hon. Gentleman is seeking to deal with monopolies and market power.
The hon. Gentleman may not like it, but the plant breeder is entitled to take commercial advantage of the varieties that he has bred, discovered or developed. The breeder or breeders may, and generally have, invested considerable sums, time, resources and technical expertise. If there is a problem and for some reason a breeder is holding back or acting, as it is thought, against the public interest, clause 15 contains powers for the controller to issue a compulsory licence. If anyone thinks that there is a real problem, such a licence can be issued if it is thought that it is in the public interest to do so. If a breeder abuses the dominant position of the marketplace, appropriate powers are available to the controller.
The hon. Gentleman is on a much wider issue, in many ways, than those with which we are dealing. I do not knock that because he is right to raise it on this occasion. The new clause, however, is not suitable for inclusion in the Bill for both the narrow and the wider reasons that I have advanced.

Mr. Baker: I am grateful to the Minister for accepting that I have raised an important matter. I fully accept that it fits into a much wider arena than the Bill covers, the Bill being quite narrowly drawn on a narrow subject. The Minister has accepted, I think, that the matter I have raised relates to the Bill in a way, and that is important.
As the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) said, no compulsory licence has ever been issued. That worries me somewhat. My other concern is that big business is involved. There is an attempt by certain companies to corner the market in a monopolistic way. Furthermore, as I understand it, there is pressure from the American authorities to ensure that licences and advances are introduced and take place as soon as possible without the precautionary principle being applied. It is surely important for the Government to protect the interests of all involved in this country so that they might stand up to the pressures that will follow. I accept, however, the Minister's argument. The new clause represents an attempt to raise a matter of principle. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule I agreed to.

Schedule 2

CONDITIONS FOR THE GRANT OF PLANT BREEDERS' RIGHTS

Mr. Baker: ; I beg to move amendment No. 8, in page 20, line 31, after 'application', insert—
' 1A. The variety shall not be deemed to be distinct if, for the purposes of assessment of genetically modified organisms under United Kingdom or European Union law it has been deemed substantially equivalent to an existing variety.'.
The amendment represents an attempt to set out for the Minister what I perceive to be a potential weakness; I hope that he can convince me otherwise. It seems that plant breeders, especially transnational companies, argue clearly for distinctness as a reason for their having benefits under the Bill, but when they seek to convince the European Union that any plant or feedstuff that contains a genetically modified material should be available for


human consumption they argue that there is no distinctness and that the feedstuff or material is almost exactly a replica of something that occurs naturally. In some instances, the plant breeding industry will attempt to have it both ways by arguing sameness when trying to obtain EU permission and distinctness when, in future, trying to benefit from the Bill.

Mr. Rooker: . I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman again because he has raised an important issue. At the same time, I am not entirely clear what he seeks by way of the amendment. I shall not nit-pick about technical defectiveness, but I am unclear about the use of
The variety shall not he deemed to be distinct".
Varieties are not deemed to be substantially equivalent in UK law or EU law: they are deemed, to be either distinct or not. A technical protocol has been developed by UPOV, which is recognised internationally, for checking whether there is distinctiveness. It is true that a difference in one characteristic is sufficient to make a variety distinct, but the second variety may be dependent on the variety from which it is derived. In those circumstances, as I said on Second Reading, the holder of rights in the first variety will be able to claim an interest in the exploitation of the dependent variety.
The language set out in the amendment about deeming would be entirely impracticable when considering inclusion in the Bill. That illustrates why we need precision and clarity in the Bill. It is necessary to ensure that everyone knows where he or she stands—breeders, farmers and producers—so that there is no argument in law about deeming something to be substantially equivalent or distinct, bearing in mind the fact that there is a set of international protocols for testing the distinctiveness of plant varieties. The amendment would muddy the waters, if I may put it that way.

Mr. Baker: Perhaps I might apologise for my earlier defective amendments, if there were any. I feel rather more vindicated on this amendment because the words
The variety shall not be deemed to he distinct
are a replication, with the addition of the negative, of the first line of schedule 2. That being so, I assume that it is a reasonable form of words. I am grateful to the Public Bill Office for helping me with the rest of the amendment.
These matters are complicated and I accept that it is possible to move one pawn on the chess board and upset everything else. At the same time, I believe that it is possible for the plant breeder to have it both ways. Perhaps that is not a matter to be pursued now but perhaps the Minister will ensure that what the breeder benefits from in terms of the Bill will not be argued the other way round during another stage in the process. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Schedules 3 and 4 agreed to.

Bill reported, without amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — Solicitor-General (Salary)

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Ann Taylor): I beg to move,
That the draft Solicitor General's Salary Order 1997, which was laid before this House on 12th June. be approved.
Before I say a few words about the order, I should like to welcome the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) to the Opposition Front Bench in his new capacity. I am sorry that this debate is such a relatively minor event for his debut, but I am sure that there will be many fuller opportunities to discuss House affairs.
The draft order is straightforward. It provides for an increase in the Solicitor-General's salary, so that it is at the same rate as that of the Lord Advocate. The House will know that, following the general election, the Solicitor-General was appointed as a Minister in the other place, which created an unusual situation that had not previously applied.
The House will also know that the Top Salaries Review Body and the Senior Salaries Review Board have published reports that have supported the traditional arrangement of paying the Solicitor-General the same salary as the Lord Advocate when both have been in the same House. As both are now in the other place, the Solicitor-General's salary needs to be increased so that it is once again the same as the Lord Advocate's. I do not think that this issue is contentious: it is a simple, straightforward amendment to bring that salary into line. I hope that it will meet with the approval of the House.
The order, if it is accepted this evening, will come into effect on 27 June this year, and will determine the salary of the Solicitor-General to be £78,072, which is exactly the same as the salary that was recommended for the Lord Advocate in the 1996 SSRB report. I hope that this simple measure will find favour with the House.

Sir Patrick Cormack: I thank the right hon. Lady, the Leader of the House, for her gracious words of welcome. I immediately reassure her that, although the Opposition agonised long over this measure, we have finally come to the conclusion that it would be appropriate not to impede the passage of the order.
I expected the Government Benches to be full of disappointed lawyers. It is somewhat surprising that the Government could not find a lawyer in this House to occupy this position. When I glanced at Dod's, the invaluable guide to this new House of Commons, I saw that only two Members had registered an interest in jobs, both of whom are from the Government Benches but neither of whom is a lawyer. The only Member of the House of Commons who has indicated an interest in the law is the recently appointed Opposition Chief Whip.
I suppose that one can understand why the Government wanted to look elsewhere for their Solicitor-General. Perhaps this is a case of "it's not what you know, but who you know", although I fully accept that Lord Falconer is very learned in the law. I also accept that, in taking this salary, which may seem gargantuan to some of us, he is doubtless depriving himself of large fees.
The Government are clearly fortunate to have the services of such a learned lawyer. It would be churlish in the extreme for us to deny him this exceptionally modest salary. So I am delighted, in what the right hon. Lady referred to as my debut from the Dispatch Box, to welcome the order and urge the House to approve it.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: I should begin by declaring an interest, in that I once appeared unsuccessfully against the new Solicitor-General in a tribunal hearing before the Civil Aviation Authority. I should also declare a further interest. Such is the nature of the village of Scots law that it was his father, an eminent practising solicitor in Edinburgh, who gave me my first substantial case after being called to the bar in Scotland.
I therefore have compelling reasons for not adopting the churlish attitude that the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack), making his debut, eschewed. I add my congratulations to those that have already been expressed. If I may respectfully say so, it was a matter of astonishment to many of us on the Liberal Democrat Benches that the hon. Gentleman did not have an equivalent responsibility at a much earlier date. I welcome him, and congratulate him warmly.
The Law Officers play a special role, because they give advice to the Government on legal matters affecting Government policy. Sometimes they have to stand aside from the Government. Some of us remember when Sir Patrick Mayhew, as Solicitor-General, had to threaten to put the Metropolitan police into 10 Downing street to get proper responses to inquiries that arose out of the Westland helicopter affair. On occasion, the Law Officers must exercise responsibilities in the public interest rather than on behalf of the Government.
It is right to say that there is great disappointment that there is no candidate from the House of Commons for the post of Solicitor-General for England and Wales. It is a double disappointment, because there is no candidate in the House of Commons to be Lord Advocate or Solicitor-General for Scotland.
The Scottish legal system is distinct and different, and, some would argue, in some respects a material improvement on the common law system of England and Wales. It is a civil law system: part of the exchange between Scottish scholars and the universities of Leiden and Utrecht in the middle ages. It is disappointing that it is not properly represented in this House. We are constantly told that this is a United Kingdom Parliament. It is a matter of great distress that hon. Members from Scotland do not have the opportunity to ask of a Law Officer from Scotland the questions that they are able to ask of Mr. Attorney.
My astonishment is, in some respects, based on my ignorance. I had not appreciated that it was being suggested that the lowly office of Solicitor-General is equivalent to the traditional and important office of Lord Advocate in Scotland. The Lord Advocate's office is of considerable age. About the time of the 1745 rebellion, the Lord Advocate, Duncan Forbes of Culloden, was, in effect, running Scotland. Before there were Secretaries of State for Scotland, the Lord Advocate was the Government's representative in Scotland.
I know things have changed a little, and the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (Mr. Dewar) is the Secretary of State for Scotland. I take nothing away from his great ability, charm and aptitude, but it is slightly galling that the great office of Lord Advocate should be compared to this inferior office, not least because the Lord Advocate's responsibilities are substantial. Every prosecution in Scotland runs in the name of the Lord Advocate, who is ultimately responsible for its conduct. That burden is not placed on the shoulders of the Solicitor-General for England and Wales.
I am not renowned for quarrelling with the Top Salaries Review Body, but in this particular regard I do not think that its analysis of the respective importance of these two jobs is accurate and justified.
Finally, although I never did national service, there used to be an observation that applied to people who did not enjoy their national service, to the effect that, if they could not take a joke, they should not have joined up. If, on I May, the Solicitor-General did not consider that the salary was good enough, he need not have accepted the appointment. [Interruption.] A sotto voce voice, which I shall not identify lest it embarrass the individual in his chambers later, says that the Solicitor-General nearly did not take the job. That says quite a lot about public service and the high motivation that Ministers require to serve the nation in either House of Parliament.
I should also say that it is pretty soon for the Solicitor-General to get a pay rise. If it is awarded on the basis of productivity, one would have to work a little longer in a factory or in Sainsbury's before receiving such a pay rise.
The Leader of the House said that the debate was not controversial. It may not be controversial, but it does not stand proper comparison with the dignity of the office of Lord Advocate in Scotland. I wish that it were possible to amend the order, as I certainly would have tabled an amendment recognising the remarkable responsibilities of the Lord Advocate and the fact that he is poorly remunerated compared with what now appears to be generous provision for the Solicitor-General for England and Wales.

Mr. Edward Garnier: At the outset of the remarks by the hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell), I was persuaded not to join my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack), whom I congratulate on his appointment to the Front Bench, in teasing the Labour party about its failure to find within a huge parliamentary party a suitable candidate for Solicitor-General.
First, the point had already been made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire; secondly, I risked being ticked off by the hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife, who is a learned member of the Scottish Bar and a fine advocate on behalf of the Liberal Democrats. However, the hon. and learned Gentleman then proceeded to make what I can only consider to be one of the most churlish speeches I have ever heard. I know that he was presumably speaking in jest and forensically, but it was an unhelpful speech because the Solicitor-General—in this House or in another place—needs to be properly remunerated.
I have to declare an interest, as I was Parliamentary Private Secretary to the former Attorney-General and Solicitor-General at the same time. I consider that the Law


Officers in the House are underpaid. Perhaps I am echoing the views of Mr. David Pannick, one of the leading lights of the English Bar, who wrote an article in The Times recently suggesting that the Attorney-General should receive the same salary as a Lord Justice of Appeal—some £140,000 a year.
English and Scottish Law Officers carry immense burdens. Their offices are undervalued by us mere politicians. They perform duties on behalf of the Scottish and English and Welsh legal systems that go far beyond the usual public recognition that Ministers of their seniority normally expect. They do not appear every night on "Newsnight" and other exciting programmes, but that is probably because they are still working in the House or in their Department at the behest of the Government.
In my view, the Government—of whatever complexion—get very good value for money, and not just from the individual Law Officers and their staff—including the Attorney-General, the Solicitor-General and the Scottish Law Officers and their predecessors under the Conservative Government.
The debate allows me to suggest that the law and Parliament have become two separate countries. That is much to be regretted. The myth persists that the House of Commons is overstuffed with lawyers. The lawyers who are here—I include myself—may well be overstuffed, but sadly the legal profession is not over-represented in the House. It is to the detriment of the law and the House that the preponderance of legal talent in the Houses of Parliament now rests in the other place.
The whole point of tonight's debate is to draw attention to the sad separation between two great institutions. The election result underpins the assumption that there must be an enormous number of Labour-supporting lawyers in the solicitors' profession and at the Bar, so why are they not attracted to public service in the House of Commons? Pay must play some part. I do not agree with the hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife that those who are attracted into public service should not also be attracted by reasonable salaries.
People such as the Solicitor-General, the Attorney-General and their predecessors will have given up a great deal in financial terms in order to enter Parliament. They will have given up great and highly respectable practices at the Bar, for which they were properly remunerated. That must be a discouragement, as, by the time one attained sufficient seniority at the Bar to be worthy of consideration as a Law Officer, one would have to be a Queen's Counsel of some experience.
It is not in the interests of the House or the country to discourage well-qualified barristers from entering the House. I dare say that the difference between the £78,072 and £52,278 that we are now discussing will not begin to compensate the Solicitor-General for what he has given up.
The second reason why the law and the House have become two different countries relates to the lowering of public esteem for Members of Parliament. I shall not go in for a fascinating discussion about sleaze, as that would cause too much trouble on both sides of the House, but we as parliamentarians must recognise the lowering of public esteem. If the public do not think much of the House, why should members of the Bar wish to join it when they have a respectable occupation already?
Thirdly, there are fears at the Bar that, in future, Members of Parliament will be discouraged from continuing to practise at the Bar and that, either through exhortation or by changes in the rules of the House, it will become increasingly difficult for Members to maintain a practice or any other outside paid interest, so the House will shut itself off from a huge well of talent from which we should be able to draw law officers.
The hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife has already outlined the width, breadth and depth of the burden that falls upon the Lord Advocate, the Solicitor-General for Scotland, the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General, so I will not repeat them. I hope that the House will by acclamation pass the order, not just because the current Solicitor-General deserves his salary, but because all Law Officers deserve it. I hope that it will send a message to those practising at the Scottish or English Bar who might otherwise be discouraged from entering politics, and to do so with a will to discharge public service.

Dr. Julian Lewis: Like other Opposition Members, I was rather surprised that it was not possible to find a new Labour lawyer in the House to take up such a responsible position. My mind went back to an article in The Independent last September, which reported:
New Labour is awash with lawyers, all waiting for their rewards".
It even said that the Society of Labour Lawyers had experienced a massive increase in membership. In just 12 months, it had increased to 800 members—an increase of two thirds in a single year. So why was Mr. Falconer, as he was at the time, selected?
The answer is a good and honourable one. Charles Falconer QC is an outstanding and gifted lawyer, and he has much in common with the Prime Minister. They have known each other since their schooldays, they have been friends for many years, they have great mutual professional respect, and they both send their children to fee-paying schools.
That is an important point to make when paying tribute to Lord Falconer, because he has taken an important salary cut. According to The Times on 8 May, in a decent year Lord Falconer could expect to make £500,000, which will fall to a derisory £78,000. Out of that, he will still have to find the £21,000 that he apparently spends sending his four children to private schools. I respect him greatly for taking a cut in his income of that magnitude, and my only sadness is that his children will not be joined at their private schools by the children of even poorer families, because of the abolition of the assisted places scheme.
I wish to draw attention to the gender discrimination that lies behind the treatment of Lord Falconer by the Government in comparison with the treatment of the new Minister for Women, the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock), with whom I have crossed swords in a previous existence outside the House. We are reliably informed by The Guardian that there are no fewer than 101 Labour women Members, but the Minister for Women was appointed six weeks after all the other Ministers, and will not receive a salary—not even a minimum wage. That contrasts badly with the treatment of Lord Falconer.
I shall conclude on a positive suggestion, arising from the bible of the old Labour party—The Guardian—which today pointed out that the Government will send no fewer than 50 of its Members of Parliament at a time away from Westminster to keep them out of trouble—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The hon. Gentleman has strayed dangerously far from the confines of the order. He seems to be unrepentant. I wish him to return swiftly to the terms of the order.

Dr. Lewis: I merely wish to suggest that similar consideration should be given, as we approve the order, to other people in less prestigious posts. They should perhaps be remunerated by a tithe from those of their colleagues who will not be serving in the House for part of the time.

Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: Given that the Opposition will not oppose the order, my comments are independent, but I hope that they will make a contribution to the decision. Perhaps they will inform future decisions, so that they will be better made. To my mind, there is something of the 18th century about the way that the new Government have approached their responsibilities. They have an 18th-century style majority, and they are now distributing the largesse of office among their friends.
On the one hand, we heard time and again before the general election attacks by the Labour party on the powers and privileges of another place, although the ordinary members of another place receive merely a subsistence allowance for their daily attendance. On the other hand, when the Government choose to magic their new Solicitor-General—who has not taken part in any election, and who does not face the duties to his electorate that we face to ours—into office, they brazenly ask the House to give him a salary nearly twice the size of that of an ordinary elected Member of this Chamber.
I expect howls of anguish from Labour Members, and, perhaps, given the earlier comments by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Gamier), from some of my hon. Friends with a legal background, when they contemplate the huge fall in income that the Solicitor-General faces. Having accepted such a huge loss in his income, he would have shown a little more style if he had gone the whole way and accepted no income at all.
I believe it was said in the 18th century by one of the Treasury Ministers who served under Pelham and Walpole and other Prime Ministers of the day that, as Ministers of the Crown went to and from the House of Commons, they were passed their money "with a squeeze of the hand". Tonight, we will have a more open process to pass money to the Solicitor-General, and we must all be in favour of that. I believe it was an 18th-century Prime Minister who said that every man has his price, and some will say, perhaps mistakenly, that the price of the Solicitor-General is £78,000.
As my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) said, the order is a stark contrast with the treatment of the Government of their Minister for women. It says much for the latent chauvinism of the Government that they cannot see the irony in paying an unelected male

nearly £80,000, when they refuse to pay an elected female any money for her ministerial duties. At this rate, I fear that the effect of the order will be single handedly to reverse the great process that occurred under the previous Conservative Government, by which the wage differential between men and women narrowed to merely 20 per cent.

Ms Louise Ellman: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that his comments are gross hypocrisy, given that the Conservatives now have fewer women Members than before the election, while the Labour party has many more? In view of that fact, the comments by Opposition Members tonight are grossly hypocritical, and do them little credit.

Mr. St. Aubyn: I am grateful that the hon. Lady has drawn attention to the fact that there are now many lady Labour Members. I appeal to them to join me in criticising the difference between the treatment of the Solicitor-General and the treatment of the Minister for women. I regret that there are fewer women Conservative Members, and I believe that, at the next election, the electorate will vote in many more women Conservatives—and, indeed, many more male Conservatives—so that we return to government. We all look forward to that.
The Government have shown discrimination in advancing this much appreciated and well-argued case for money for the Solicitor-General, when the treatment of the Minister for women has been so shabby. I am surprised that a Labour lady Member should criticise me for hypocrisy, when the actions of her party have been hypocritical in this instance.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: I confined my earlier remarks to the principles involved in presenting the order—and, having heard a couple of Conservative Members speak, I think that that was wise of me. I do not want to spend much time on some of the points that have been raised, but let me say a word about what was described as "gender discrimination".
I do not think that Labour Members need any lectures from Conservatives, who obviously found it difficult to bring themselves to allow women candidates to stand in winnable seats. This year, especially, when we have seen the election of the largest number of women ever, the vast majority of them on our side of the House, we need no lectures from Opposition Members.

Dr. Julian Lewis: Would the Leader of the House care to comment on her own remarks in the context of women-only short lists? Might not those just possibly have had something to do with it?

Mrs. Taylor: I am not sure that that is relevant to the debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I shall answer the hon. Gentleman's question. He ought to know that most Labour women Members were not selected from all-women short lists. That is a matter of fact, for the record.
I can tell the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends that my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock), who has recently been appointed to a junior position as Minister for women, to assist the Secretary of State for Social Security in representing the


interests of women, needs no help from Opposition Members in defending her position. I am sure that she will enjoy debating such matters with them whenever they take an interest.
We heard some different views from Opposition Members about the exact level of salary appropriate for the Solicitor-General. I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn), who I understand was an investment banker before he entered the House, and may still be one, complaining that the suggested salary for the Solicitor-General was too high. I am not sure how that salary compares with the average salary of investment bankers, but it would be interesting to speculate what that might be.
It is also interesting that the hon. Gentleman claimed that my noble Friend would receive such a salary only because he was a friend of certain people in the Labour party, whereas the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Gamier) extolled his virtues. There is an interesting contradiction there.

Mr. St. Aubyn: Surely the Leader of the House has come to the heart of the matter now. I have not recently been an investment banker, but we know that many people are prepared to give up large salaries in order to serve their country as Members of Parliament. I do not think that one should single out the legal profession above all others.

Mrs. Taylor: Nor do I, but when we have an independent recommendation and the person appointed is, as the hon. and learned Member for Harborough said, well qualified to do the job, that person should be paid the rate independently recommended for that job by the SSRB. I feel strongly that, when the SSRB makes recommendations about the salaries of Members of Parliament and of individual Ministers, we should as a general principle act upon them. Otherwise, we would be saying that we as Members of the House should determine those salaries. I think that that would be dangerous.

Sir Patrick Cormack: indicated assent.

Mrs. Taylor: I am glad that the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman agrees on that matter of principle. I assure him that those of us who have been here for several years know that interfering with the principle can only cause hon. Members on both sides of the House many difficulties.
The hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell), who spoke for the Liberals, was uncharacteristically churlish—I must agree with the hon. and learned Member for Harborough that that is the appropriate word.
I speak as someone quite well versed in Scottish history, not only because I was born in Scotland but because my father was intent on ensuring that we all knew a good deal of Scottish history. None the less, I would not compare my knowledge of 1745 with that of the hon. and learned Gentleman, and I shall not go down the route that he suggested and debate whether the office of Solicitor-General is inferior to that of the Lord Advocate. However, I know that he accepts the principle that the SSRB makes recommendations that the House should accept.
It is on the basis of that principle that I recommend the order—not because the salary is one which I have plucked out of the air, or one which I think appropriate for the Solicitor-General, but because it is a matter of principle. The SSRB laid down a comparison, and I think it appropriate that we should stick to it as closely as possible.
I do not want to comment on the personality of the Solicitor-General. My earlier remarks were not personal, and the salary is being suggested because of the position, not because of the personality. None the less, I welcome the comments of the hon. and learned Member for Harborough, another Queen's counsel, who tells us that my noble Friend is so well qualified for the position.
Finally, I shall put Opposition Members in the picture on the increase before us. In one sense, it is an increase, but the salary of the Solicitor-General in the Conservative Administration was £82,189 on 1 April 1997, and on 2 May, the last day of the previous Government, it was £96,138. So although there is a technical increase for the present Solicitor-General because he is in another place, the actual sum paid is significantly lower than that paid to the previous Solicitor-General.

Mr. Garnier: The right hon. Lady will, of course, wish to clarify the fact that the previous Solicitor-General, Sir Derek Spencer, was also a Member of Parliament, so part of the figure she mentioned included his salary as such.

Mrs. Taylor: That is exactly the point, and that is why we had to introduce the order. The totality of the pay of the former Solicitor-General was significantly higher than the totality of the pay of the present Solicitor-General, because my noble Friend is in a different House. People who complain as if we were suddenly increasing the salary do not quite understand the situation, that the order arose directly out of the fact that the Solicitor-General is a member of another House, and directly out of the recommendation of the SSRB. I urge the House to accept it.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Solicitor General's Salary Order 1997, which was laid before this House on 12th June, be approved.

Orders of the Day — Plymouth Ocean Projects Ltd.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Mudie.]

Mr. Gary Streeter: I wish to bring to the attention of the House a sad and disturbing story of a fine company based in my constituency, responsible for many jobs both locally and elsewhere in the United Kingdom, which has been dealt a devastating financial blow through no fault of its own, because of bureaucratic bungling and intransigence of the worst kind.
I shall begin with a summary. The company in question, Plymouth Ocean Projects Ltd., which trades as Fort Bovisand Underwater Centre, is owned by a constituent of mine, David Welsh. It entered into various arrangements in August 1996 with two colleges of further education to train students in diving. All was well until confusion arose between the Further Education Funding Council and the two colleges over whether such courses should be funded. By this time, the training was well in progress and the company carried on the training.
As a result of the confusion, which remains today, the company, although it has incurred all the overheads involved and has continued to train young people for their future careers, has not been paid since November 1996 and is threatened with insolvency. Job losses have already occurred through no fault of the company, and further job losses will occur unless the matter is resolved. I am glad to see the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) in his place and I welcome him to his position. My argument tonight is that the Secretary of State has the power to intervene to direct the funding council to confirm that the courses should be funded. At the conclusion of my remarks, I will urge the Minister so to intervene.
It might be helpful if I flesh out the sequence of events in slightly more detail so that the House is aware of the full horror of the circumstances. Fort Bovisand Underwater Centre is the largest diving school in Europe. It has been established for 27 years and has a worldwide reputation for quality. It uses many subcontractors to carry out its training work and, in all, about 300 jobs are directly related to the existence of the company.
Last August, the company entered into a contractual arrangement with South Devon college, based in Torbay, and the Mid-Kent college, based in Chatham, to carry out a series of 10-week courses. The arrangement with South Devon college amounted to 50,000 units of training, and with the Kent college to 100,000 units of training—a substantial investment by the diving centre.
The courses began in August and all went well. Overheads were incurred, staff were paid and students were trained. In November and December 1996, problems began. In correspondence between the Further Education Funding Council and the two colleges, the council intimated that the courses might not be appropriate for funding and that funding might not be forthcoming.
The funding council's attitude was that it was for the principals of the colleges to decide whether to continue the courses. The colleges understandably took the view that they could not possibly pay for the courses unless

they were reimbursed by the funding council, and they were not able to obtain funding from outside the funding council route. Therefore, a stalemate arose and it largely remains today.
The funding council relied on a circular from early 1996 in which, it said, it made it clear that such courses could no longer be funded. The colleges—in my view, rightly—said that the circular made nothing clear and that the situation was extremely confused. The confusion continued from November 1996. From that date, no more payments to the company were made, although it rightly continued to train young students and to honour its contracts. It continued to train to the same high standard. It is now owed the staggering sum of £562,000 as a result of the confusion and the lack of funding by the funding council. It is clear that the company is in a severe financial position.
My constituent began to lobby his then Member of Parliament and the then Government to intervene to break the logjam so that the company could continue to train students and be paid for it. He saw the then Minister in April 1997 and a great deal of correspondence took place. Legal advice was sought and much paperwork generated, but action came there none.
Since the general election, I have been in contact with the Department for Education and Employment, which was waiting for legal advice. I can tell the Minister that the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 seems to give him the power to intervene. Section 57(3) states:
If the Secretary of State is satisfied, either upon complaint by any person interested or otherwise, that—

(a) a council, or
(b) the governing body of any institution within the further education sector,

have failed to discharge any duty imposed on them by or for the purposes of the Education Acts, he may make an order under this subsection.
The explanatory note to the section states:
This section enables the Secretary of State to intervene, on the recommendation of the Further Education Funding Council, in the event of mismanagement of an institution. It also provides for intervention where there has been a failure—either by the Council, or by the governing body of an institution within the further education sector—to discharge a duty.imposed upon them, or unreasonable action on the part of such a governing body.
I would say that that entitles the Minister to intervene and direct the funding council to confirm that the courses should be funded.

Ms Louise Ellman: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Liverpool Dive school in my constituency is also affected? I want its situation to be given further consideration and I want a broader study of the operation of the Further Education Funding Council and its accountability.

Mr. Streeter: I am glad that the hon. Lady intervened. I am concerned to learn about the institution in her constituency. Many institutions and organisations throughout the country are awaiting funding because of these circumstances—many of them are subcontractors to Fort Bovisand Underwater Centre. She is right to call for a general review of the way in which the council carries out its duties in that regard.
We are still waiting for a definitive answer from the Department for Education and Employment. My constituent was told that we would have an answer on


17 June about the legal advice received by the Department, but sadly we are still awaiting the outcome. In the meantime, jobs have been and will continue to be lost. Indeed, more than 100 people have lost their jobs as a result of this bureaucratic bungling and the jobs of more than 100 more are on the line.
All that it would take for the matter to be resolved is for the funding council to confirm that the courses, which were entered into in good faith by all the parties, will be funded. It saddens me to think that people in secure jobs in the funding council in Coventry, who understand the threat to the livelihoods of more than 200 people—many of whom are my constituents—will not do more to be flexible, exercise discretion and common sense, do what is right and recognise that a genuine misunderstanding arose and that they can intervene and resolve matters.
I urge the funding council tonight, as I have urged it in correspondence, to reconsider and confirm that the courses will be funded, which would remove the logjam. I am asking the council not to create a precedent or to open the floodgates, but to recognise that an honest misunderstanding has arisen and that it has the ability to resolve the problem. My constituent, Mr. Welsh, is an innocent victim and he does not deserve to be treated in this way.
In conclusion, having dealt with the funding council for the past three months on this problem and felt the cold indifference of its response to date, I am not optimistic that it will change its mind. That is where I come to the Minister, whom I know to be a good-hearted man, even though he is Welsh. I urge him to act and to use his powers under the 1992 Act to direct the funding council to exercise common sense. At the stroke of a pen, he can resolve this issue. On behalf of my constituents, I urge him to do so.

Mr. Richard Ottaway: I will not keep the Minister or the House long.
The implications of this affair go much wider than Plymouth, or indeed Liverpool. In my constituency, I have a company called the Scubadoo diving centre. It has appealed to me and to my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth), who has taken a close interest in the matter as some of his constituents work for Scubadoo.
The implications of the matter seem to be extensive, ranging across a number of companies throughout the country. The hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) is making noises from a sedentary position. Perhaps he is speculating why a diving centre is located in Croydon, some 50 or 60 miles from the sea. The answer is that, being a good, middle-class, prosperous, Tory-voting constituency, it contains people who want to go diving for recreation and so it seems a logical place for a diving school.
Through the Mid-Kent College of higher and further education, Scubadoo was a subcontractor to Plymouth Ocean Projects, providing services under contract. It describes itself as a satellite company. I am not sure what the contractual relationship is, but it was providing services in Plymouth for Mid-Kent college and expecting to be funded by the Further Education Funding Council. The company was astonished to be informed in March that funding had been withdrawn from August.
A small company is now owed about £19,000. There have been redundancies, and four divers' jobs are at risk. I hesitate to use the word bungle, but there has certainly been an administrative and bureaucratic oversight. We are talking about people's jobs and lives; it is not a question of people who should have known better than to enter into a contract: they were led to believe that they were serving the nation by providing educational facilities.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter), I have always respected the Minister. I am delighted that he is on the Front Bench, as he has always behaved in a courteous and logical manner for and on behalf of his party. I hope that he will be able to say something constructive about a human situation that needs attention.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: The hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) seemed somewhat bewildered by my interest in the debate. Like him, I have a satellite or subcontracting company, Rhino Divers, in my constituency, so I came as, I hope, a diligent Member of Parliament. I was also approached, fairly and appropriately, and asked to attend the debate, by the desperately anxious constituent of the hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter).
I share hon. Members' deep concern and anxiety for people who have contracted in good faith to provide services and find that they are not being paid and are consequently financially embarrassed. The situation is clearly wholly unsatisfactory and shambolic. I look forward to what my hon. Friend the Minister has to say, but it seems to me that both the college and the Further Education Funding Council deserve serious criticism for the mess that they have created.
My hon. Friend the Minister will have the same difficulty that existed for the previous ministerial team. I understand that the previous Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard), expressed sympathy, but said that it was not a matter for her; however, that is not set in tablets of stone, so I look forward to what my hon. Friend will say. I know that he will do all that he can to help people who have been substantially disadvantaged, including those in both the substantive company to which the hon. Member for South-West Devon referred and the sub-contractors.
I fully endorse the concerns expressed by other hon. Members, but I am also here to say that it would be quite wrong for it be inferred that the new Labour Minister has a magic wand to wave that was not available to the previous Secretary of State.

Mr. Streeter: Party politics.

Mr. Mackinlay: The hon. Gentleman misunderstands me. I did not intend to introduce a note of partisanship. I wanted to say only that the matter had properly been referred to the previous Secretary of State, who was unable at that stage to help the hon. Gentleman's constituents. I wanted to flag it up that if the new Minister had found some way to overcome the impediments I would say hip hip hooray. I hope that the hon. Members for South-West Devon and for Croydon, South would join me.
It should not be inferred that the problem is down to the Government, when they have demonstrably inherited it. The previous Secretary of State was not lacking in good will, but had difficulties that were conveyed to the constituent of the hon. Member for South-West Devon in a lengthy letter.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Dr. Kim Howells): I thank the hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) for giving me the opportunity to make several points on this issue and to set the record straight. I assure him and other hon. Members who have spoken that I intend that this mess should be cleared up as soon as possible. His advocacy for the jobs that are at stake was passionate. I shall certainly try to ensure that the jobs are preserved because they are to be found in some of the most difficult parts of the country in terms of unemployment. They are valuable and we need them.
Essentially, Mr. Welsh, managing director of Plymouth Ocean Projects, has made a complaint to the Secretary of State against the Further Education Funding Council. The complaint is being considered by the Department, and has been for some time, as the hon. Member for South-West Devon pointed out. It is being dealt with urgently but properly. Officials are not yet in a position to provide advice to the Secretary of State. I am very surprised about that because it is clear from letters from the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard), that this thing has been dragging on. It should not have dragged on as long as it has. When officials give that advice, the Secretary of State will come to a decision and communicate it, with reasons, to both parties.
Let me recount the history of the complaint, which was made in the last days of the previous Government. Lord Henley, in one of his last actions as Minister, wrote to Sir Robert Gunn, chairman of the Further Education Funding Council—which I shall refer to as the FEFC, even though I hate such abbreviations—enclosing Mr. Welsh's complaint, identifying what seemed to be its main elements and seeking the council's views. Before turning to the complaint, it may be useful if I set out the legal framework for handling it.
Under section 57(3) of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992,
If the Secretary of State is satisfied, either upon complaint by any person interested or otherwise, that—

i) a council, or
ii) the governing body of any institution within the further education sector,

have failed to discharge any duty imposed on them by or for the purposes of the Education Acts, he may make an order under this subsection".
The hon. Gentleman referred to that power, which is very important.
The following subsection states that
an order under subsection (3) above shall declare the council or the governing body, as the case may be, to be in default in respect of that duty, and may give such directions for the purpose of enforcing the execution of that duty as appear to the Secretary of State to be expedient".

The Secretary of State also has the power under section 496 of the Education Act 1996 to prevent the funding council from acting unreasonably. This is important. That section states that
if the Secretary of State is satisfied (either on a complaint by any person or otherwise) that a body to which this section applies have acted or are proposing to act unreasonably with respect to the exercise of any power conferred or the performance of any duty imposed by or under this Act, he may give such directions as to the exercise of the power or the performance of the duty as appear to him to be expedient".
It is obvious to me from the reply of the hon. Member for South-West Norfolk to an earlier letter from the constituent of hon. Member for South-West Devon that she did not consider it to be clear and expedient to act in that way. I want to explore how we might be able to act in that way.
When considering the exercise of any of these powers, the Secretary of State is acting in a quasi-judicial role in the general public interest, because public law may have been breached. The Secretary of State is not acting in the private interests of the complainants who have brought the matter to the Department's attention.
I should note that the meaning of the word "unreasonable" has been defined by the courts in the context of the exercise of the power. To fall within this expression, the conduct of the body must be conduct that no sensible body acting with due appreciation of its responsibilities would have decided to adopt. The interpretation of the word "unreasonable" imposed by the courts is therefore much more constrained than common usage implies. I assure the hon. Member for South-West Devon that I do not say that to make an excuse for the lack of resolution of the matter. To justify the Secretary of State's intervention, a decision has to be "unreasonable" to the point at which no sensible person in possession of the facts could possibly have reached it.
Mr. Welsh's complaint is that the Further Education Funding Council is refusing to fund training courses in diving that his company has provided, through a contract that he has with two FE colleges—Mid-Kent and South Devon. I am glad that the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) spoke on the matter. He and my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Ms Ellman) have made it clear that the decision on this case goes much further than the decision on Fort Bovisand Underwater Centre, the company involved, and its associated companies.
Lord Henley identified four main elements to the complaint: first, that the FEFC should have accepted the open water and advanced open water courses as eligible for schedule 2(d) funding. Section 3(1) and schedule 2 to the Further and Higher Education Act define the courses for which the FEFC has a duty to secure adequacy of provision for part-time students aged 16 and over and full-time students aged 19 and over. Schedule 2(a) consists of courses leading to a vocational qualification approved by the Secretary of State. Schedule 2(d) consists of courses that prepare students for entry to courses in schedule 2(a). The FEFC is responsible for deciding which courses properly come under schedule 2(d). If I can translate that into English—it needs translation—open water and advanced open water training courses are intended to train people as scuba divers. I have discovered


that the word scuba does not come from some exotic Cuban drink, but means self-contained underwater breathing apparatus.

Mr. Mackinlay: I knew that.

Dr. Howells: My hon. Friend may have known that, but I did not.
The instructor manual of the Professional Association of Diving Instructors says that the open water diver course enables the student to engage in
recreational open water diving without direct or indirect supervision".
The same manual says that the advanced open water diver course provides the
novice diver with a structured, well-supervised means to gain additional experience".
Diving courses are arranged in the form of a ladder, with an individual needing to succeed at one level before passing to the next. Several diving courses are included in schedule 2(a). The highest rung of the ladder in schedule 2(a) is divemaster. There are three training courses below this level: in reverse order, rescue diver, advanced open water diver, and open water diver. The FEFC accepts that rescue diver, as covered by schedule 2(d), prepares the individual for the next level, divemaster, which is in schedule 2(a). It does not accept that open water diver and advanced open water diver courses should fall within schedule 2(d).
I have described that first element in some detail to provide the background to the other elements of the complaint identified by Lord Henley. The second element is that the FEFC should have accepted the opinions of the college principals involved that the courses were eligible for funding. This bears on the system in place for determining eligibility. The third element is that the FEFC did not make its decisions sufficiently clear, sufficiently well known or sufficiently early. This bears on the way in which the FEFC communicated its views to the sector. The fourth element is that the FEFC did not take action, even though it was aware of colleges' plans to include such courses. This bears on the system of communication between colleges and the FEFC.
I have outlined the complaint. What has happened since? The FEFC has replied to Lord Henley's letter, rejecting the four elements of the complaint in some detail. Departmental officials are considering the matter. In doing so, the FEFC has been asked for clarification on certain points, and the advice of counsel has been taken. In the light of that advice, officials have written to the FEFC seeking its further comments.
Departmental officials and our legal advisers have been aware of the urgency with which this matter should be pursued and they are even more aware of it today. However, the important thing is that it should be dealt with properly. Ministers are being kept informed of progress and are content that the matter is being dealt properly. It should be dealt with now and it is being dealt with now. Counsel advises that it should be dealt with as speedily as the nature of the complaint allows, but it is a complicated issue. We do not think that it would helpful or appropriate for the advice that we have received from counsel to be made public at this point.
Throughout, departmental officials have kept Mr. Welsh informed. We will continue to do so. Officials have also reminded him that he must take his own advice about the merit of pursuing alternative courses of action, in particular, pursuing the colleges in question in court—after all, it is with them that he has the contractual arrangement. Mr. Welsh has pursued this matter with energy and vigour and is in regular written and telephone contact with the Department. He has been kept fully informed of progress and, as I am sure the hon. Member for South-West Devon knows, conversations with Mr. Welsh have been many and there has been a full exchange of information.
I repeat that we are dealing with the matter urgently, but properly. I will certainly interest myself closely in the case and want to assure myself that the matter is being handled with all due speed. However, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will consider the complaint only on the basis of advice from officials and that advice will not be offered until it is soundly based. Mr. Welsh will be kept informed of developments.
I give the hon. Member for South-West Devon an undertaking that these matters are proceeding and that they will proceed more quickly. I understand the passion with which he addressed the issue; these jobs are important. I am shocked at what appear to be several instances of a lack of communication and of coherent interaction between the FEFC and the colleges in question. I am more than a little shocked by the way in which these matters generally are inspected and monitored. This is one of several cases that show that there should be much more careful monitoring of what contracts are allowed and of the interpretation and understanding of the legislation involved.
I believe that we can resolve this case. It must be resolved quickly. We have instructed departmental officials to get on with that job and I assure the hon. Member for South-West Devon that we will not relax until resolution has been reached.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes past Nine o'clock.